From suresh at hserus.net Fri Oct 31 19:17:23 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 04:47:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: <20141031173442.139e7932@quill> References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <0705D9A0-56EA-499A-9406-9C2754BD7349@gmail.com> <20141031173442.139e7932@quill> Message-ID: <149687fac30.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Well, a national baseball tournament does get called the world series, if only because it was first sponsored by the New York World newspaper On October 31, 2014 10:05:36 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:01:21 +0800 > Chantal Lebrument wrote: > > > But, regarding this China event it seems to be a... China event between > > ICANN and US operators and chinese regulators... > > So when the Chinese want to talk with US folks, they call that a > “world” conference. That's like the rest of the world isn't relevant to > them. Oh well, maybe that's simply the truth, and the rest of the world > simply isn't relevant to China as far as the Internet is concerned. > Something for all of us who are neither Chinese nor US-American to > ponder and maybe do something about. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Oct 31 19:19:54 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 04:49:54 +0530 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: <1496881fdf0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Not strictly geographical either. RIPE covered a lot of North Africa historically On October 31, 2014 11:55:12 PM 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 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Oct 31 21:31:16 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:31:16 -0700 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: Hi, On Oct 31, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > There was never, ever, any government or even nation-state element in how it was all organized. Perhaps in the RIPE region. Other regions had different models, some of which did involve nation-state elements. > 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 In the Asia-Pacific region, Korean, Japanese, and Australian national NICs all existed prior to the existence of APNIC (and, in fact, were instrumental in helping APNIC get established). Government involvement in the AP region national NICs was typically informal and indirect at that time, but it did exist (government involvement has evolved over time). Within the Latin American and Caribbean region, I believe the Brazilian and Mexican NICs existed prior to the existence of LACNIC. > 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. > 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. 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 drc at virtualized.org Fri Oct 31 21:41:46 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:41:46 -0700 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: <1B8AA796-B0E6-44E6-BFB8-B171765EC1B4@virtualized.org> On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Not strictly geographical either. RIPE covered a lot of North Africa historically RIPE covered a lot of places, in part due to former colonial ties of countries within the RIPE region. Before AfriNIC was established, ARIN provided services to sub-Saharan Africa and RIPE provided services to Northern Africa. Before LACNIC was established, ARIN provided services to Latin America and the Caribbean. And of course, before RIPE-NCC and APNIC were established, InterNIC (or its predecessors) provided services to the entire world. Not that this ancient history matters too much anymore. 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 22:48:19 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:48:19 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> References: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> Message-ID: In the counterfeit resolution. But things are better now and bad language on unauthorized and unique identifiers was taken out or made flexible. The consolidated version as of this morning attached. On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Very helpful Ujwala. Parminder, where is the devices issue being > discussed? > > Thanks > > Anriette > > On 31/10/2014 07:33, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: > (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . > www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: S14-PP-141020-DL-0017!R3!MSW-E(2).docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 51158 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 10:22:02 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 14:22:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Call for nominations for Civil Society representation on the IGF's MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All, A note just to let you know that the nomination period closed last night and IGC has received supporting statements from, and is endorsing, the following candidates: 1) Ephraim Percy Kenyanito 2) Baudouin Schombe If I'm leaving out anyone who sent the required materials to me or to the IGC list, please let me know. While the nomination of one other candidate and the secondment of two of them were simultaneously posted to both Bestbits and IGC lists, we did not at IGC receive any further information from those. In any case, I believe all candidates will be examined based on the announced criteria, and the number of networks that endorse their candidacy is not directly one of them. Thanks anyway to those who have considered it relevant to seek IGC endorsement. Good luck, Mawaki On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I wish to remind you that nominations will close by Sept 30, that is, next > Tuesday -- meaning the CSCG should be receiving all nominated candidates' > statement addressing the four selection criteria by that date. > Thank you, > > Mawaki > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Following our notice and call for comments posted here on Sept 12 (below >> for your reference), here is the formal call for nominations for civil >> society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG). >> >> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society >> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net >> Coalition, who together comprise the Civil Society Coordination Group. You >> are welcome to nominate through any of the above individual coalitions. >> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30, 2014. >> >> If you wish to nominate via IGC, or you have been nominated and wish to >> accept, please do so either on list or by email to kichango at gmail.com >> (by reply to this email or in a new email with 'MAG nomination' in the >> subject line.) >> >> Please include in your nomination the nominee's name, country of >> residence, country of nationality, and gender. Please also specifically >> address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and >> evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria. >> >> CRITERIA >> >> * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working >> on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on >> behalf of public interest concerns. >> >> >> * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS >> networks >> (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) >> on >> MAG discussions. >> >> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >> >> * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and >> constructively >> in the MAG deliberations. >> >> >> >> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this >> process. >> >> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates >> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16. >> >> More about the IGF and the MAG can be obtained from www.intgovforum.org >> Best regards, >> Mawaki >> IGC Co-coordinator >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Mawaki Chango >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Folks, this is a lengthy message requesting your feedback as regards >>> Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) nominations >>> and the role that the Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group >>> (CSCG) might play. >>> >>> The history that led to this has been that, in the past various, civil >>> society groups have nominated separately, with the result being that the >>> Secretariat made its own decisions, including in some cases people with no >>> active involvement with the civil society groups. Last year for the first >>> time we were able to achieve a degree of cross-endorsements between our >>> groups, but this was still confusing to the IGF Secretariat. To remedy >>> this, we are looking this year for the first time to have a more >>> comprehensive civil-society endorsement process for candidates. >>> >>> In this respect, we expect to issue a call for candidates next Thursday >>> (September 18). In the meantime, as we finalise this approach, your >>> comments are sought on the following. >>> >>> >>> >>> TIMETABLE >>> >>> >>> >>> The draft timetable is as follows. Bear in mind that each coalition >>> member will be calling for its own nominations which will be collated with >>> others at a later stage >>> >>> Thurs, Sep 18 - release call for nominations and final selection criteria >>> >>> >>> >>> Tues, September 30 - close of nominations >>> >>> >>> >>> October 1-3 - collation of nominations and shortlisting from various >>> coalitions >>> >>> >>> >>> October 4- 14 - completion of selections and publication of names to >>> lists >>> >>> >>> >>> October 16 - forwarding names to IGF Secretariat. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Your comments on this are welcome. >>> >>> PROCEDURES >>> >>> The draft procedures follow. These are still being refined within CSCG, >>> but your input is welcome. >>> >>> >>> >>> The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and >>> conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside >>> bodies. >>> >>> >>> >>> The following is the procedure which CSCG follows when a request for >>> civil society appointments is received. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. CSCG may be involved in nominations when requested to do so by >>> either one >>> of its members or by an outside organisation requesting CS involvement. >>> When >>> such a request is received, CSCG will clarify what has been requested >>> and, in >>> a case where CS already has representation, consult with existing >>> representatives in clarifying the involvement required. >>> >>> 2. 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. >>> >>> 3. Any CSCG member who wishes to be eligible for selection as >>> part of any process must announce that intention before a call for >>> candidates is announced, and may nominate another representative of their >>> coalition to take their place on the Nomcom. >>> >>> 4. CSCG as a whole will determine selection criteria for any >>> appointments and announce them as part of a call for candidates. >>> >>> 5. CSCG will determine and manage a timetable for the process. >>> >>> 6. A separate CSCG mailing list will be established for each >>> nomination process. >>> >>> 7. Unless otherwise determined by CSCG members, each coalition >>> will issue its own call for candidates, and forward appropriate names to >>> CSCG at the nominated close of nominations. Coalitions are at liberty to >>> shortlist their own candidates and only submit appropriate names, or to >>> forward all names received >>> >>> 8. Where time permits and as appropriate, candidates may be asked >>> to address selection criteria in their nominations. >>> >>> 9. The CSCG Nomcom will consist of all voting members and the non >>> voting chair, with the exception of representatives of coalitions who >>> choose not to participate in a particular process. >>> >>> 10. The Nomcom in making its decisions should determine appropriate >>> procedures to arrive at a final decision. But unless circumstances suggest >>> otherwise, it is suggested that selection should begin with a shortlisting >>> process, which will assist in identifying most favoured candidates and >>> which candidates should be examined more closely. Following from >>> shortlisting, which is a guide only and not an indication of which >>> candidates should be selected, Nomcom members will arrive at the final >>> candidates list, using on line exchanges and if necessary conference >>> linkups to determine the final slates. >>> >>> 11. All members of the Nomcom are required to consider the interests >>> of civil society as a whole, and not just their own coalition, in >>> determining appropriate representatives >>> >>> 12. All Nomcoms will take into account geographic and gender balance >>> in determining their final selections, while considering also the need >>> for the breadth of viewpoints/worldviews represented within civil society >>> to be represented. While realising that complete balance will not be >>> able to be achieved in every individual instance. CSCG members are >>> requested to take into account any such deficits in balances in previous >>> CSCG decisions in making selections, with an objective of achieving balance >>> over a period of time which may not be achievable in every particular case. >>> >>> 13. The records of each Nomcom will be destroyed six months after the >>> process is completed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> SELECTION CRITERIA >>> >>> The following are suggested selection criteria for MAG for your comments >>> (see also comments above re achieving balance across the slate of >>> candidates) >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society >>> groups working on internet governance issues >>> >>> 2. Consultative style >>> >>> 3. Previous attendee at IGF >>> >>> 4. Able to work constructively with other stakeholder groups >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> A period for comments and suggestions is now open. A call for candidates >>> will be issued on Thursday, September 18. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> (Independent Chair, CSCG) >>> >>> >>> >>> CSCG members are: >>> >>> Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia >>> Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director >>> >>> Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member >>> >>> Civicus, represented by Mandeep Tiwana, Head of Policy and Research >>> >>> Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet >>> Governance Programmes >>> >>> Just Net Coalition, represented by Norbert Bollow, Co-convenor >>> >>> Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, >>> Co-Coordinator >>> >>> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin >>> Gross, NCSG Executive Committee >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 1 08:42:59 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:42:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Milton, No one can answer your question because it is based on a false premise. This premise is the US BUG. If you pose as a premise that you can "Be Unilaterally Global", and managed to make the world believe your way of using the technology is the single possible one, you certainly have an influence if your propositions looks acceptable (capable is another issue :-)). However, this influence is obtained by the rule of necessity. And as I said elsewhere necessity is mother of invention. In our digital network area, the US industry has succeeded in making the world's people believe that its root centered networking was a necessity. It is now up to us, the people, the Libre engineers, the IUsers to make obvious to everyone that digitality, by its very essence, is not centered and they are free to chose the laws they voted rather than the laws lobbied by the US corporations. I know, it will take time. And bigTrans National Corporations will resist. However, a few steps a head have already occured since IEN 48 was frozen by the status-quo strategy. The architectural vision has been better defined; software programming has matured; new datacommunications technologies are emerging; RFC 6852 is uncomplete but has been signed; the world in Dubai has voted "no". Snowden was used to trigger Montevideo, Sao Paulo and Geneva. Next date is Sept 30, 2015. One year to go. One year for the Libre MYCANN-plug-in to be explored, discussed, developped, tested and deployed. Tight schedule, for a few people ... http://mycann.org. You are welcome to join on http://0net.org. One year to go .... until Oct. 1st, 2015. ICANN or not ICANN will then be the question. jfc At 22:50 30/09/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="_000_b3d1154ec4094871a651da67b8305203EX13MBX13adsyredu_" > > >Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we >not discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based >telecommunication and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple >and obvious question for me? Please, I am serious. > >No one can answer this question because it is based on a false >premise. But you provided your own answer anyway: > > >Because US tell us so. And so many of us are happy to take our > > cues from the US, and its political and corporate allies. (Has it > > anything to do with from where the money flows?) > >It is based on a false premise because: > >Here in the US of A, we are talking about nothing else but a new law >and/or regulation on net neutrality, it got 5 million public >comments. And the same federal regulatory agency, known as the FCC, >has been running a proceeding on the telephony-to-IP transition >since January >https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-5A1.pdf > > >The dialogue you say doesn’t exist is transnational. I was under >the impression that there were half a dozen workshops on net >neutrality at this year’s IGF. I believe that the topic was >debated extensively, if inconclusively, at Netmundial. The European >Commission has also been discussing and acting on it. > >The word “net neutrality” is an American term and the current >Presidential administration is on record as supporting it. You >probably learned the words “IP transition” from America, too. So >explain to me again how the evil empire is preventing everyone from >talking about such laws or regulations?? I am serious, or at least >as serious as one can be when dealing with outlandish accusations. > >Is the basis of your political appeal now a shopworn >anti-Americanism, rather than a policy agenda that actually makes >things better? > >Keep in mind that “model laws” developed by the UN are >significant only insofar as they are adopted by national >governments. Which means, they have limited relevance when it comes >to global Internet governance issues. > >As a thought experiment, ask yourself which has had more influence >and importance to the future of the Internet: the UNCITRAL model e >commerce law? >http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/1996Model.html > >Or the Clinton administration’s Framework for Global Electronic >Commerce, which provided the rationale for ICANN? >http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Commerce/ > > >If the latter proved more influential, is it because the evil empire >stopped everyone from talking about the topic and used Jedi mind >tricks to force it down our throats? Or was it because a globalized >approach proved to be more practical and suitable to the growth of >the internet than a fragmented, nation-based approach? > >If the neoliberal telecom competition and deregulation policies won >out in the 1980s and 1990s, was it because of US power, or was it >because the policies were fantastically successful at stimulating >the growth and penetration of the Internet and information and >telecom services and equipment, more so than the 70 years of >national monopoly that preceded it, and thus were imitated by >country after country? > >These might be more “serious” and productive questions for >people on this list to answer > >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 > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Thu Oct 2 10:37:57 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:37:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] [SIMPDA 2014] Call for Participation Message-ID: <012f01cfde4e$75407e50$5fc17af0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receives multiple copies of this CFP] ############################################################################ Fourth International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis ############################## SIMPDA 2014 ################################# - http://simpda2014.di.unimi.it/ - IFIP Working Groups 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 - - Milano, Italy, November 19th-21st - # About SIMPDA # With the increasing automation of business processes, growing amounts of process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6 - 2.12 International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis is to offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the industry can share their insight in this hot new field. The Symposium will feature a number of keynotes illustrating advanced approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, a competitive PhD seminar and selected research and industrial demonstrations. This year the symposium will be held in Milan, the city of Expo 2015. # Call for Papers # The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2013) offers a unique opportunity to present new approaches and research results to researchers and practitioners working in business process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis. The symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and scientists from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 15 pages. Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original contributions, not previously published or under review for publication elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English and must follow the LNCS Springer Verlag format. Templates can be downloaded from: http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceeding volume with an ISBN. The authors of the accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume which will be published in the LNBIP series (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for early 2014 (extended papers length will be between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 10-15 papers will be selected for publication after a second round of review. -- Topics -- Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to: - Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods - Data-aware and data-centric approaches - Variability and configuration of process models - Process Mining with Big Data - Process simulation and static analyses - Process data query languages - Process data mining - Privacy-aware process data mining - Process metadata and semantic reasoning - Process patterns and standards - Foundations of business process models - Resource management in business process execution - Process tracing and monitoring - Process change management and evolution - Business process lifecycle - Case studies and experience reports - Social process discovery - Crowdsourced process definition and discovery -- Workshop Format -- In accordance to our historical tradition of proposing SIMPDA as a symposium, we propose an innovative format for this workshop: The number of sessions depend on the number of submissions but, considering the previous editions, we envisage to have four sessions, with 4-5 related papers assigned to each session. A special session (with a specific review process) will be dedicated to discuss research plan from PhD students. Papers are pre-circulated to the authors that will be expected to read all papers in advance but to avoid exceptional overhead, two are assigned to be prepared with particular care, making ready comments and suggestions. The bulk of the time during each session will be dedicated to open conversations about all of the papers in a given session, along with any linkages to the papers and discussions within an earlier session. The closing session (30 minutes), will include a panel about open challenges during which every participant will be asked to assemble their thoughts/project/ideas/goals/etc that they got out of the workshop. # Call for PhD Research Plans # The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their research results. Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an extended abstract describing their research. Submissions can relate to any aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions, interaction and design advances, innovative applications, and social implications. Research plans should be at most of 4 page long and should be organized following the following structure: Abstract: summarizes, in 5 line, the research aims and significance. Research Question: defines what will be accomplished by eliciting the relevant the research questions. Background: defines the background knowledge providing the 5 most relevant references (papers or books). Significance: explains the relevance of the general topic and of the specific contribution. Research design and methods: describes and motivates the method adopted focusing on: assumptions, solutions, data sources, validation of results, limitations of the approach. Research stage: describes what the student has done so far. - SIMPDA PhD award - A doctoral award will be given by the SIMPDA PhD Jury to the best research plan submitted. # Student Scholarships # An application for a limited number of scholarships aimed at students coming from emerging countries has been submitted to IFIP. In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it # Keynote Speakers # Jorge Cardoso University of Coimbra, Portugal - Compliance of Business Processes with Reference Models - Reference models provide best practices to design effective and efficient business processes. However, a main challenge is to evaluate how these best practices are implemented. One limitation of existing approaches is the assumption that compliance can be determined using the notion of process equivalence. Nonetheless, the use of equivalence algorithms is not suitable since two models can have different structures but one process can still be compliant with the other. This talk presents an approach to measure the compliance of process models with reference models, which was used by a German passenger airline using IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) reference models. The talk also covers various initiatives to evaluate the quality and understandability of process models. # Industrial Talks # Claudia Sebastiani Creativi Quadrati, Partner openERP - Business Process Measurement in small enterprises after the installation of an ERP software - We report the observation of the first six months of operation after the installation of an ERP software in a group of small Italian enterprises (some dealers of various products and one manufacturer). Before the ERP, no explicit process descriptions existed within the companies: the operations were manually performed, using office automation software or legacy programs that were not process oriented. The new ERP is equipped with a workflow engine, a number of standard processes that should be followed by the users, and a tracking system that logs the main steps of the processes. We use process mining tools to analyze the events logged by the ERP during the sales, the purchases and the manufacture cycles. Our aim is to 1) compare the ideal processes suggested by the ERP with the real paths followed by the users 2) describe the eventual adaptation of these paths, as the users became acquainted with the ERP 3) highlight critical segments in terms of time spent, iterations, etc. 4) compare the processes of different companies that are in similar business areas. The final goal is to get a better understanding of the processes and a rationalization of the operations. It must be stressed that both the ERP and the main tools used are open source, so that the process measurement is affordable even for very small (micro) enterprises. Gregorio Piccoli Zucchetti - Hierarchical clustering for managers - Data Mining and Process Mining over big amount of data are today more and more requested by companies. However managers do not have the necessary competences for handling the results of analysis ran using these techniques. For this reason data visualization is a key element to exploit the full potential of data analysis. Zucchetti spa has developed an in-house approach for constructing user-friendly data visualizers. Gabriele Ruffatti Engineering Ingegneria Informatica - A living story: measuring quality of developments in a large industrial software factory with Open Source Software - Open Source has no more intrinsic value per se. Nowadays it is facing new challenges, such as stimulating creativity and bringing innovation into market. One of its major challenges consists in delivering valuable outcomes, which requires a PMAI approach: Plan metrics and dimensions of analysis, get Measures and global performance value from data, Assess results and Improve processes by solving issues and removing bottlenecks. Engineering Group uses Open Source Software to makes this happen. Spago4Q, the analytic of the business intelligence suite SpagoBI, allows the company to measure the quality of products, processes and services and to monitor the continuous improvement of quality practices. The measurement and enhancement of productivity complies with quality certifications such as ISO and CMMi standards. QESTnd - an n-dimensional measurement model - allows to collect performance values on three dimensions of analysis (Economical, Social and Technical) in order to identify process areas that need improvements. Drill-down capabilities provide both a unified view of the global performance of the Labs and detailed views of the single process dimensions. # Organizers # CHAIRS - Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany - Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Barbara Russo, Free University of Bozen - Bolzano, Italy ADVISORY BOARD - Karl Aberer, EPFL, Switzerland - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Tharam Dillon, La Trobe University, Australia - Dragan Gasevic, Athabasca University, Canada - Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria - Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Philippe Cudre-Mauroux , University of Fribourg, Switzerland # Program Committee # - Irene Vanderfeesten, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands - Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Manfred Reichert, University of Ulm, Germany - Schahram Dustdar, Vienna University of Technology, Austria - Mohamed Mosbah, University of Bordeaux, France - Meiko Jensen, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany - Helen Balinsky, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, UK - Valentina Emilia Balas, University of Arad, Romania - Karima Boudaoud, Ecole Polytechnique de Nice Sophia Antipolis, France - George Spanoudakis, City University London, UK - Richard Chbeir, University of Bourgogne, France - Gregorio Martinez Perez, University of Murcia, Spain - Ebrahim Bagheri, Ryerson University, Canada - Jan Mendling, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria - Farookh Hussain, University of Technology Sydney, Australia - Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE - Wil Van der Aalst, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands - Ronald Maier, University of Innsbruck, Austria - Chintan Amrit, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Marco Montali, Free Unviersity of Bozen - Bolzano, Italy - Elizabeth Chang, University New South Wales, Australia - Peter Spyns, Flemish Government, Belgium - Angelo Corallo, University of Salento, Italy - Antonio Mana Gomez, University of Málaga, Spain - Mustafa Jarrar, Birzeit University, Palestinian Territory - Isabella Seeber, University of Innsbruck, Austria - Chi Hung, Tsinghua University, China - Alessandra Toninelli, Engineering Group, Italy - Haris Mouratidis, University of Brighton, UK - Abder Koukam, University of Technology, UTBM France - Fabrizio Maria Maggi, University of Tartu, Estonia - Massimiliano De Leoni, Eindhoven TU, Netherlands - Edgar Weippl, TU Vienna, Austria - Pnina Soffer, University of Haifa, Israel - Jianmin Wang, Tsinghua University Beijing, China - Minseok Song, UNIST, South Korea - Roland Rieke, Fraunhofer SIT, Germany - Josep Carmona, UPC - Barcelona, Spain - Mark Strembeck, WU Vienna, Austria - Matthias Weidlich, Imperial College, UK - Mohamed Mosbah, University of Bordeaux - Maria Leitner, University of Vienna, Austria - Benoit Depaire, University of Hasselt, Belgium - Barbara Weber, University of Innsbruck, Austria - Babiga Birregah, University of Technology of Troyes, France # Historical Information on Previous Editions # SIMPDA was proposed in 2011 and 2012 by IFIP WG 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 as the International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis. The symposium had around 30 attendees in 2011 and 20 in 2012. It featured a number of keynotes illustrating new approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, and a competitive PhD seminar, together with selected research and industrial demonstrations. The authors of the accepted papers have been invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume published in the Springer LNBIP series. Several events and activities arose off these symposia, among the most notables we have two Dagstuhl seminars: - Dagstuhl Seminar on Semantic Challenges in Sensor Networks, January 24-29, 2010. - Dagstuhl Seminar on Unleashing Operational Process Mining, November 24-29, 2010. The venue was for both editions Campione d'Italia, the Italian enclave surrounded by Swiss territory, on the shores of Lake Lugano. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Fri Oct 3 05:29:16 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] more power to Amazon In-Reply-To: <542E6BF3.3030802@ITforChange.net> References: <542E6BF3.3030802@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <542E6C6C.10609@ITforChange.net> Even Amazon’s detractors readily admit that it is one of the most powerful tools for selling books since the Gutenberg press. But how that power is used is increasingly being questioned in a way it was not during the company’s rise. Take, for instance, the different treatment Amazon has given two new Hachette books on political themes. “Sons of Wichita” by Daniel Schulman, a writer for Mother Jones magazine, came out in May. Amazon initially discounted the book, a well-received biography of the conservative Koch brothers, by 10 per cent, according to a price-tracking service. Now it does not discount it at all. It takes as long as three weeks to ship. “The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea” by Representative Paul Ryan has no such constraints, an unusual position these days for a new Hachette book. Amazon refused to take advance orders for “The Way Forward,” as it does with all new Hachette titles. But once the book was on sale, it was consistently discounted by about 25 per cent. There is no shipping delay. Not surprisingly, it has a much higher sales ranking on Amazon than “Sons of Wichita.” read the article on http://www.deccanherald.com/content/433941/literary-lions-unite-against-amazon.html regards Guru -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 4 10:34:42 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 20:04:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54300582.4030002@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 01 October 2014 02:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we not > discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based telecommunication > and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple and obvious question > for me? Please, I am serious. > > No one can answer this question because it is based on a false > premise. But you provided your own answer anyway: > > >Because US tell us so. And so many of us are happy to take our > > > cues from the US, and its political and corporate allies. (Has it > > > anything to do with from where the money flows?) > > It is based on a false premise because: > > Here in the US of A, we are talking about nothing else but a new law > and/or regulation on net neutrality, it got 5 million public comments. > And the same federal regulatory agency, known as the FCC, has been > running a proceeding on the telephony-to-IP transition since January > https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-5A1.pdf > Milton, Throughout this email, you seamlessly move between UN based international law making and US law making, which may get forced on the world bec of the US's economic and technical might, as if there isnt any real substantive difference between the two... I would have been very surprised by this if I did not know that you know exactly what you are doing - which makes it simply very disappointing. Please, US cannot be doing global governance, and to the extent it does it has to be simply lamented and resisted. This is true of any country (in fact, any actor) who exercises such the greatest and the most concentrated illegitimate power, and it just happens to be the US at the present with regard to the 'global Internet'. (If you contest this fact, I am ready to discuss it.) In the circumstance, when I ask for global model laws in these other areas on the lines of the 1997 UN model law on e-com, your pointing to some law making exercises happening in the US bespeaks an US centric arrogance which is what I consider as very disappointing. I know you are a careful person, and you are doing this because, unfortunately, these global IG civil society forums allow you space to speak things which one cannot speak at almost any other civil society space, I mean, in any other area of CS work. In fact even with such views you are nominated to speak on the behalf of civil society at the IGF... Therefore, ones regrets are larger than just about what you say. > The dialogue you say doesn’t exist is transnational. I was under the > impression that there were half a dozen workshops on net neutrality at > this year’s IGF. I believe that the topic was debated extensively, if > inconclusively, at Netmundial. The European Commission has also been > discussing and acting on it. > When did I say there is no global discussion on net neutrality ? ... As for the resistance to it and the resources thrown in for that sake I have historical details of how an NN debate and position forming got resisted on the IGC list as well in the MAG, for years, before it was finally taken up this year, and then what went into how the debate got shaped for the main session of the IGF and so on... Yes, I know the European Commission as well as Council of Europe has been working on it, and I have participated especially in the latter's effort. > The word “net neutrality” is an American term > Oh, I keep forgetting that. We all must remain eternally grateful for such mercies. What would we be without the US. > and the current Presidential administration is on record as supporting > it. You probably learned the words “IP transition” from America, too. > Well, yes. How much ever may I like to, we are just not able to come off the colonial and post colonial yoke. Dont we still take everything of worth from the west? Perhaps you would next note that we are actually conversing in English that UK gave to the world.. > > So explain to me again how the evil empire is preventing everyone from > talking about such laws or regulations?? > Apart from US and its corporate allies being the chief instigators for filtering the debates at the IGF, that is not what I am talking about when I mention actual norms and larger policy making, even if just as model laws. You will agree that this cannot happen at the IGF, right. And of course US is the main party opposed to the UN taking up any norms or policy development work with regard to Internet related policies. Do you contest this statement. > I am serious, or at least as serious as one can be when dealing with > outlandish accusations. > > Is the basis of your political appeal now a shopworn anti-Americanism, > rather than a policy agenda that actually makes things better? > The US rules the global Internet, politically and economically . Any civil society actor whose chief aim is a better distribution of power (that at least is what civil society used to be) would naturally make the US as its chief target. But obvious. It is those who continually support the US's political and economic power on the Internet who must explain themselves. > > Keep in mind that “model laws” developed by the UN are significant > only insofar as they are adopted by national governments. > Yes . > > Which means, they have limited relevance when it comes to global > Internet governance issues. > Yes, indeed global governance needs more than model laws. That is just one part of what UN can do - I mean develop model laws as it did for e-com, but global Internet policies have to also be made by democratic global gov bodies. Meanwhile, there does exist a connection between the two. Harmonized national laws go a long way in effective global governance of the Internet. If you see the proposed function of the CIRP proposed by India in 2011, one of the key functions indeed is to harmonise national laws in this area, to the extent possible. If you have not heard of what harmonising national laws mean, just ask your government about trade and IP areas and what its consistent global efforts are in this regard. > As a thought experiment, ask yourself which has had more influence and > importance to the future of the Internet: the UNCITRAL model e > commerce law? > http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/1996Model.html > The India's IT Act, which is the default Internet law in India at present, mentions the UNCITRAL model e-com in its preamble, and presumably takes a lot from it. > Or the Clinton administration’s Framework for Global Electronic > Commerce, which provided the rationale for ICANN? > http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Commerce/ > Yes, this one certainly had a much greater impact on the global Internet. But this is an illegitimate impact. I dont know why cant you distinguish between legitimate political/ legal / policy impact and illegitimate ones. You seem to be proposing that the power behind a law/ policy is the main consideration, and not its legitimacy. To take the colonial example again, the world still is suffering the years of bad work that colonial masters did, including having drawn arbitrary geo political boundaries (west asia being one key example). The still current and powerful impact of those acts do not make them legitimate in the first place, same for the Clinton Administration's Framework for Global Electronic Commerce. > If the latter proved more influential, is it because the evil empire > stopped everyone from talking about the topic and used Jedi mind > tricks to force it down our throats? Or was it because a globalized > approach proved to be more practical and suitable to the growth of the > internet than a fragmented, nation-based approach? > Yes, a political philosophy and policy framework was simply forced down everyone's throat along with a technology that was indeed very alluring and useful. That is exactly what happened, as I did say in a recent email to Barry on the IGC list. > If the neoliberal telecom competition and deregulation policies won > out in the 1980s and 1990s, was it because of US power, or was it > because the policies were fantastically successful at stimulating the > growth and penetration of the Internet and information and telecom > services and equipment, more so than the 70 years of national monopoly > that preceded it, and thus were imitated by country after country? > They were successful because the state owned telco infrastructure model was outdated. It was rightly replaced. But this is not the only lesson from history we have. We know the role of regulations in making telephony mainstream in the US, and then is triggering the software revolution... I am sure you need not be re taught that bit of history. In the same manner we know the positive role of global policy frameworks and regulation in many areas. Therefore, there have to be free market forces, and there have to be regulations. The problem is that the US, and you, seem to only want the former and not the latter. Unbounded markets without regulation (other than US enforced one over the whole world). That is a recipe for disaster. parminder > > These might be more “serious” and productive questions for people on > this list to answer > > 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 5 14:23:51 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:23:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <54300582.4030002@itforchange.net> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <54300582.4030002@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5cc07bf192ce484fb6fcec8d03508871@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Throughout this email, you seamlessly move between UN based international law making and US law making, which may get forced on the world bec of the US's economic and technical might, as if there isnt any real substantive difference between the two... MM: Nope. I make it very clear when I am talking about one or the other. Your point was “the U.S.” was preventing us from talking about certain issues. My contention was simply that the U.S. is talking about those things extensively at its own domestic level, and that indeed, many of those dialogues originated in the U.S. and went transnational. No confusion as to levels. When did I say there is no global discussion on net neutrality ? MM: In your original post. Glad to see you backing off here. ... As for the resistance to it and the resources thrown in for that sake I have historical details of how an NN debate and position forming got resisted on the IGC list as well in the MAG, for years, before it was finally taken up this year, MM: Another factual error. See this, a NN workshop from 2011: http://intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article?id=883:ig4d-workshop-183-a-possible-framework-for-global-net-neutrality Yes, I know the European Commission as well as Council of Europe has been working on it, and I have participated especially in the latter's effort. MM: So apparently the “US” effort to prevent discussion has failed there, too. Well, yes. How much ever may I like to, we are just not able to come off the colonial and post colonial yoke. Dont we still take everything of worth from the west? MM: A typical Parminderism. Someone notes the irony of you claiming the “the U.S.” is stopping us from discussing an issue that is being actively discussed in large part because of US domestic politics, and you transmute that into a claim that everything of worth originates from the West. Apart from US and its corporate allies being the chief instigators for filtering the debates at the IGF, MM: The chief instigators of filtering debates at the IGF are those who don’t want to disturb the IG status quo, as you know well. But that camp includes people in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia as well as “the U.S.” I’ve run up against those filters as much as you have, btw, only about 5 years before you. Ask yourself why I wasn’t asked to be on the IANA transition panel at either Netmundial or IGF, for example. But I am from the US. Why didn’t they welcome a fellow imperialist hegemonic white male? How do you explain this, my friend? Maybe there are substantive policy differences at stake that cannot be reduced to 1970s-vintage state-centric worldviews? Maybe “the US” is the wrong label to be using to characterize your enemies? Your whole mentality is still locked into the nation-state mindset. The US rules the global Internet, politically and economically . Any civil society actor whose chief aim is a better distribution of power (that at least is what civil society used to be) would naturally make the US as its chief target. MM: But redistributing power to whom, and for what purpose? First, it is obvious that you are talking exclusively about a redistribution of power among nation-states – an approach that is intrinsically hostile to civil society. Further, I don’t think a redistribution that, say, strengthens the Russian or Chinese states is anything to get excited about – or haven’t you kept your eyes on what is happening in Hong Kong? Perhaps you will follow Putin and Xi and blame all the HK unrest of “the U.S.”? All part of our attempt to maintain global hegemony. So let’s suppress freedom and democracy in Hong Kong so we have a better distribution of power? I don’t think strengthening the Indian or Turkish or South African states is such a great idea, either. All of them seem to be more interested in Internet control than anything else. Again I ask you to frame your debate and discourse in terms of substantive policy choices and not polarized power blocs centered on nation-states. Your mode of discourse is essentially a Cold War mentality, where our political choices are centered on being for or against the US. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Oct 5 16:00:42 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 20:00:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <5cc07bf192ce484fb6fcec8d03508871@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <54300582.4030002@itforchange.net>,<5cc07bf192ce484fb6fcec8d03508871@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <195f1d72b19e4f7b9bb2c5f66c9b7dae@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Re net neutrality regulation merits and demerits, this post re 'Why is network neutrality like playing chess with a pigeon?' might be of interest in this context of what and when to regulate the Internet. http://www.martingeddes.com/network-neutrality-like-pigeons-playing-chess/ It could be taken to be from a Scotsman's/nearly independent small state point of view....of statistical multiplexing ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2014 2:23 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: RE: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Throughout this email, you seamlessly move between UN based international law making and US law making, which may get forced on the world bec of the US's economic and technical might, as if there isnt any real substantive difference between the two... MM: Nope. I make it very clear when I am talking about one or the other. Your point was “the U.S.” was preventing us from talking about certain issues. My contention was simply that the U.S. is talking about those things extensively at its own domestic level, and that indeed, many of those dialogues originated in the U.S. and went transnational. No confusion as to levels. When did I say there is no global discussion on net neutrality ? MM: In your original post. Glad to see you backing off here. ... As for the resistance to it and the resources thrown in for that sake I have historical details of how an NN debate and position forming got resisted on the IGC list as well in the MAG, for years, before it was finally taken up this year, MM: Another factual error. See this, a NN workshop from 2011: http://intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article?id=883:ig4d-workshop-183-a-possible-framework-for-global-net-neutrality Yes, I know the European Commission as well as Council of Europe has been working on it, and I have participated especially in the latter's effort. MM: So apparently the “US” effort to prevent discussion has failed there, too. Well, yes. How much ever may I like to, we are just not able to come off the colonial and post colonial yoke. Dont we still take everything of worth from the west? MM: A typical Parminderism. Someone notes the irony of you claiming the “the U.S.” is stopping us from discussing an issue that is being actively discussed in large part because of US domestic politics, and you transmute that into a claim that everything of worth originates from the West. Apart from US and its corporate allies being the chief instigators for filtering the debates at the IGF, MM: The chief instigators of filtering debates at the IGF are those who don’t want to disturb the IG status quo, as you know well. But that camp includes people in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia as well as “the U.S.” I’ve run up against those filters as much as you have, btw, only about 5 years before you. Ask yourself why I wasn’t asked to be on the IANA transition panel at either Netmundial or IGF, for example. But I am from the US. Why didn’t they welcome a fellow imperialist hegemonic white male? How do you explain this, my friend? Maybe there are substantive policy differences at stake that cannot be reduced to 1970s-vintage state-centric worldviews? Maybe “the US” is the wrong label to be using to characterize your enemies? Your whole mentality is still locked into the nation-state mindset. The US rules the global Internet, politically and economically . Any civil society actor whose chief aim is a better distribution of power (that at least is what civil society used to be) would naturally make the US as its chief target. MM: But redistributing power to whom, and for what purpose? First, it is obvious that you are talking exclusively about a redistribution of power among nation-states – an approach that is intrinsically hostile to civil society. Further, I don’t think a redistribution that, say, strengthens the Russian or Chinese states is anything to get excited about – or haven’t you kept your eyes on what is happening in Hong Kong? Perhaps you will follow Putin and Xi and blame all the HK unrest of “the U.S.”? All part of our attempt to maintain global hegemony. So let’s suppress freedom and democracy in Hong Kong so we have a better distribution of power? I don’t think strengthening the Indian or Turkish or South African states is such a great idea, either. All of them seem to be more interested in Internet control than anything else. Again I ask you to frame your debate and discourse in terms of substantive policy choices and not polarized power blocs centered on nation-states. Your mode of discourse is essentially a Cold War mentality, where our political choices are centered on being for or against the US. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 5 21:53:15 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 07:23:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <195f1d72b19e4f7b9bb2c5f66c9b7dae@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <54300582.4030002@itforchange.net>,<5cc07bf192ce484fb6fcec8d03508871@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <195f1d72b19e4f7b9bb2c5f66c9b7dae@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <148e3290b58.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Thank you. It is extremely difficult to find unbiased literature on net neutrality anywhere much, with activists obsessed with title 2 regulation as a panacea on one side and people who have shall we say a more free market outlook on the other. On 6 October 2014 1:31:53 am Lee W McKnight wrote: > Re net neutrality regulation merits and demerits, this post re 'Why is > network neutrality like playing chess with a pigeon?' might be of interest > in this context of what and when to regulate the Internet. > > > http://www.martingeddes.com/network-neutrality-like-pigeons-playing-chess/ > > > It could be taken to be from a Scotsman's/nearly independent small state > point of view....of statistical multiplexing ; ) > > > Lee > > ________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > on behalf of Milton L Mueller > > Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2014 2:23 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; > <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: RE: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder > > > Throughout this email, you seamlessly move between UN based international > law making and US law making, which may get forced on the world bec of the > US's economic and technical might, as if there isnt any real substantive > difference between the two... > > MM: Nope. I make it very clear when I am talking about one or the other. > Your point was “the U.S.” was preventing us from talking about certain > issues. My contention was simply that the U.S. is talking about those > things extensively at its own domestic level, and that indeed, many of > those dialogues originated in the U.S. and went transnational. No confusion > as to levels. > > When did I say there is no global discussion on net neutrality ? > > MM: In your original post. Glad to see you backing off here. > > ... As for the resistance to it and the resources thrown in for that sake I > have historical details of how an NN debate and position forming got > resisted on the IGC list as well in the MAG, for years, before it was > finally taken up this year, > > MM: Another factual error. See this, a NN workshop from 2011: > http://intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article?id=883:ig4d-workshop-183-a-possible-framework-for-global-net-neutrality > > Yes, I know the European Commission as well as Council of Europe has been > working on it, and I have participated especially in the latter's effort. > > MM: So apparently the “US” effort to prevent discussion has failed there, too. > > Well, yes. How much ever may I like to, we are just not able to come off > the colonial and post colonial yoke. Dont we still take everything of worth > from the west? > > MM: A typical Parminderism. Someone notes the irony of you claiming the > “the U.S.” is stopping us from discussing an issue that is being actively > discussed in large part because of US domestic politics, and you transmute > that into a claim that everything of worth originates from the West. > > Apart from US and its corporate allies being the chief instigators for > filtering the debates at the IGF, > > MM: The chief instigators of filtering debates at the IGF are those who > don’t want to disturb the IG status quo, as you know well. But that camp > includes people in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia as well as “the > U.S.” I’ve run up against those filters as much as you have, btw, only > about 5 years before you. Ask yourself why I wasn’t asked to be on the IANA > transition panel at either Netmundial or IGF, for example. But I am from > the US. Why didn’t they welcome a fellow imperialist hegemonic white male? > How do you explain this, my friend? Maybe there are substantive policy > differences at stake that cannot be reduced to 1970s-vintage state-centric > worldviews? Maybe “the US” is the wrong label to be using to characterize > your enemies? Your whole mentality is still locked into the nation-state > mindset. > > The US rules the global Internet, politically and economically . Any civil > society actor whose chief aim is a better distribution of power (that at > least is what civil society used to be) would naturally make the US as its > chief target. > > MM: But redistributing power to whom, and for what purpose? First, it is > obvious that you are talking exclusively about a redistribution of power > among nation-states – an approach that is intrinsically hostile to civil > society. Further, I don’t think a redistribution that, say, strengthens the > Russian or Chinese states is anything to get excited about – or haven’t you > kept your eyes on what is happening in Hong Kong? Perhaps you will follow > Putin and Xi and blame all the HK unrest of “the U.S.”? All part of our > attempt to maintain global hegemony. So let’s suppress freedom and > democracy in Hong Kong so we have a better distribution of power? > > I don’t think strengthening the Indian or Turkish or South African states > is such a great idea, either. All of them seem to be more interested in > Internet control than anything else. Again I ask you to frame your debate > and discourse in terms of substantive policy choices and not polarized > power blocs centered on nation-states. Your mode of discourse is > essentially a Cold War mentality, where our political choices are centered > on being for or against the US. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Oct 8 10:39:16 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 14:39:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] IAB soliciting comments on mitigation of pervasive surveillance: In-Reply-To: References: <54345D63.80902@well.com>, Message-ID: <34d84f7096f94cc38d709cf88ef13636@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> FYI, IAB requests comments on pervasive surveillance mitigation. Lee ________________________________ From: Dave Farber via ip Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2014 5:54 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] IAB soliciting comments on mitigation of pervasive surveillance: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Mike Liebhold" > Date: Oct 7, 2014 5:38 PM Subject: IAB soliciting comments on mitigation of pervasive surveillance: To: "Dewayne Hendricks" >, "Dave Farber" > Cc: Hi Dewayne and Dave, The Inernet Architecture Board is soliciting comments on two drafts that may be of interested in: Pervasive Attack: A Threat Model and Problem Statement https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-pervasive-problem-01 "Documents published in 2013 have revealed several classes of "pervasive" attack on Internet communications. In this document, we review the main attacks that have been published, and develop a threat model that describes these pervasive attacks. Based on this threat model, we discuss the techniques that can be employed in Internet protocol design to increase the protocols robustness to pervasive attacks." [snip] Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A Threat Model and Problem Statement https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privsec-confidentiality-threat-00 "Documents published in 2013 have revealed several classes of "pervasive" attack on Internet communications. In this document we develop a threat model that describes these pervasive attacks. We start by assuming a completely passive adversary with an interest in indiscriminate eavesdropping that can observe network traffic, then expand the threat model with a set of verified attacks that have been published. Based on this threat model, we discuss the techniques that can be employed in Internet protocol design to increase the protocols robustness to pervasive attacks." [snip] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [perpass] IAB security/privacy programme PM draft Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:35:17 -0400 From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall To: perpass at ietf.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 As the showrunner for the confidentiality effort in the IAB privacy and security program, please do share your feedback with us. We are also contemplating a companion document on mitigations for the threats outlined in the threat model. best, Joe On 9/15/14, 10:56 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi all, > > Richard and a few folks started work on documenting a problem > statement [1] some time ago. As I think was stated here before it > seems like a good plan for that to be progressed as part of the > IAB's re-factored security/privacy programme. So Brian Trammell has > picked up the pen and pushed out [2]. > > Comments very welcome (I've still to read it myself so will send my > comments here too when I've had a chance), > > Cheers, S. > > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-pervasive-problem [2] > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privsec-confidentiality-threat > > _______________________________________________ perpass mailing > list perpass at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass > - -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I ST NW STE 1100 Washington DC 20006-4011 (p) 202-407-8825 (f) 202-637-0968 joe at cdt.org PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUNBZEAAoJEF+GaYdAqahxrEsP/28vDnQatU/cplFLiWz9+Xda 8lscV2uhxEaQYHgy4wvsd03vgfFCE/RfG7AwX8h1+S7XDUg27GpUHLPeXJesF6cy WOSnzYN6K/WmDMn8AKYv+/FDYf6JdB5yc0zmiivAbOTDwsi6LTbRMvwRhMyUXlEM OeZlbZz5GkyMmDccUNSjS6B8WrGnxilnQX07c7bRgeq9DR5DB8QwaRsg66Z757Bi vSqDAG/87aKU8Pov5gRRHNY9QskOneuFWEIOO4pl+eqodx3c45Lyx7Ain7vjy/nO l92FTyOyf47I99vWWyrit/KBPImxNFnP2txZu1WuWXz/yNYCKxrOMiTdIycjVwVK 7jpfcAtC7IB11+nMTy4xNl4kzRBcZnCXVaWhZ+b+5/SuZX4qKrwB4YeFlQQKJXXY +F9XeG1MAjaF4qmNFeLsIUO0wadRXQ23RSlKfDqNe8s+Y2BsvoUepzxmsbSsJCJ0 NAGEGNqBnwXQwbaJO9MtTU0RzXbe1KzJw26eHY5/nfCBfyn2hYw9TjzH0cmAOOXX IcxVYBfJLu/tUNvxtpaPhlu3yvzcU99KxdjLpBsD/wOk4mfblg9AAZiwxXdq5k7+ nCSPz+CodE2OWt7UsqdCIdBiW/yaC2qnLcnMw197lRxJnDwE2NrbQx72AQAd6u9Z ndxTiZ7dEsIuOJE0OCaL =4SpJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list perpass at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Wed Oct 8 11:02:23 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:02:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST WEDS & THURS: INET Trinidad & Tobago Message-ID: This is underway. See https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/inet-trinidad-and-tobago/videos/64319729 for Raul Echeberria's thumbnail history of IG. joly posted: "Today Wednesday 8 October 2014 and tomorrow Thursday 9 October 2014 the Internet Society will present INET Trinidad and Tobago , hosted by the Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad & Tobago (TATT). This INET is to acquaint the local community with " [image: INET Trinidad & Tobago] Today *Wednesday 8 October 2014* and tomorrow *Thursday 9 October 2014* the *Internet Society* will present *INET Trinidad and Tobago *, hosted by the *Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad & Tobago * (TATT). This INET is to acquaint the local community with Internet challenges and how to be engaged with addressing these challenges. Topics include technical and policy issues: IP numbering (IPv4 depletion, IPv6 adoption); DNSSEC; RPKI; Net neutrality; OTT; The future of the Internet; Cyber security; IXPs; Identity and Privacy; ccTLD management; Local Internet content development. Speakers include - from ISOC, *Raul Echeberria*, *Jane Coffin*, *Sebastian Bellagamba*, *Christian O’Flaherty*, *Christine Runnegar*, and *Shernon Osepa*; and from the Caribbean community: *Bernadette Lewis* (CTU), *Regenie Fraser* (CANTO), *Bevil Wooding* (PCH), *Brent McIntosh* (IPv6 Forum Grenada), *Kurleigh Prescod* (Columbus Communications), and *Dr. Patrick Hosein* (UWI). The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society's Livestream Channel* . Trinidad is on AST same time zone as NYC, UTC-4. *What: INET Trinidad and Tobago Where: Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago When: Wednesday 8 October 2014, Thursday 9 October 2014 Agenda: http://www.internetsociety.org/events/inet-trinidad-and-tobago Webcast: http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/inet-trinidad-and-tobago Twitter: #TTINET2014 * Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7067 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 9 01:03:47 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:33:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <5cc07bf192ce484fb6fcec8d03508871@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <54300582.4030002@itforchange.net> <5cc07bf192ce484fb6fcec8d03508871@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <54361733.8050906@itforchange.net> Milton There are two levels to this discussion, one is a simple argumentative-ness, and a second one which in my view address the key issue of who or which actors can and should be considered as the primary target of global civil society advocacy, as being the prime threats to the kind of global Internet that we want to see in global public interest. And an associated question being, which actors are blocking rightful public interest governance of the global Internet. I will first respond in this email to your largely superficial if not misleading arguments, and address the key underlying question in my next email. excuse my indulgence.... parminder On Sunday 05 October 2014 11:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > > > Throughout this email, you seamlessly move between UN based > international law making and US law making, which may get forced on > the world bec of the US's economic and technical might, as if there > isnt any real substantive difference between the two... > > MM: Nope. I make it very clear when I am talking about one or the > other. Your point was “the U.S.” was preventing us from talking about > certain issues. My contention was simply that the U.S. is talking > about those things extensively at its own domestic level, and that > indeed, many of those dialogues originated in the U.S. and went > transnational. No confusion as to levels. > PJS: No. I said, and I quote "We badly need a global discussions on and adoption of a model law on IP based telecommunications, and on net neutrality. But any such possibility will be resisted tooth and nail, and a lot of resources thrown into it." What I am saying is that US and its cohorts prevent global discussion and *adoption* of needed public policy frameworks in the IG space... Do you content this statement. if you do, lets focus our discussion on that. Or else, concede. > When did I say there is no global discussion on net neutrality ? > > MM: In your original post. Glad to see you backing off here. > PJS: Can you please quote me, instead of insisting that I said something which I did not, and then saying I am backing off..... What I said is quoted above, I never said "there is no global discussion on net neutrality". It would be stupid to say that - I myself am a member of two global coalitions on NN. > > ... As for the resistance to it and the resources thrown in for that > sake I have historical details of how an NN debate and position > forming got resisted on the IGC list as well in the MAG, for years, > before it was finally taken up this year, > > MM: Another factual error. See this, a NN workshop from 2011: > > http://intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article?id=883:ig4d-workshop-183-a-possible-framework-for-global-net-neutrality > PJS: Again, I do know there have been workshops on NN at the IGF.... One of them, at Baku, was actually organised by me for ITfC. Can you stop producing meaningless and diversionary 'evidence'. > Yes, I know the European Commission as well as Council of Europe has > been working on it, and I have participated especially in the latter's > effort. > > MM: So apparently the “US” effort to prevent discussion has failed > there, too. > PJS: Yes, US does get away with everything it wants. We all know that. But it has succeeding in stopping NN being taken up at any truly global policy making/ framing forum, and you know that. > Well, yes. How much ever may I like to, we are just not able to come > off the colonial and post colonial yoke. Dont we still take everything > of worth from the west? > > MM: A typical Parminderism. Someone notes the irony of you claiming > the “the U.S.” is stopping us from discussing an issue that is being > actively discussed in large part because of US domestic politics, and > you transmute that into a claim that everything of worth originates > from the West. > PJS: I repeat, US does try its best that global Internet related public policy issues are not discussed and taken up by globally democratic forums in any manner that could move towards their global democratic resolution. As for your assertion that many of these issues are beign discussed globally "becuase of US domestic politics", this just betrays the symptoms of the very regrettable diseases of seeing the US as the centre of the world that many US policy makers, and policy commentators suffer from. It is not going to be very useful, but still let me repeat - we discuss Internet public policy issues globally becuase they impact us and not becuase ofUS domestic politics... > Apart from US and its corporate allies being the chief instigators for > filtering the debates at the IGF, > > MM: The chief instigators of filtering debates at the IGF are those > who don’t want to disturb the IG status quo, as you know well. But > that camp includes people in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia as > well as “the U.S.” > PJS:Has it not been amply clear that the US political and business establishment leads the pack and is its epicentre.. > I’ve run up against those filters as much as you have, btw, only about > 5 years before you. Ask yourself why I wasn’t asked to be on the IANA > transition panel at either Netmundial or IGF, for example. But I am > from the US. Why didn’t they welcome a fellow imperialist hegemonic > white male? How do you explain this, my friend? > PJS: You are slipping into a rhetoric which has no connection to anything I may have said. > Maybe there are substantive policy differences at stake that cannot be > reduced to 1970s-vintage state-centric worldviews? > PJS: Interesting! Ask Snowden how state-centric the world still is.. That is just one example. > Maybe “the US” is the wrong label to be using to characterize your > enemies? Your whole mentality is still locked into the nation-state > mindset. > PJS: This point will be addressed in my next email, > > The US rules the global Internet, politically and economically . Any > civil society actor whose chief aim is a better distribution of power > (that at least is what civil society used to be) would naturally make > the US as its chief target. > > MM: But redistributing power to whom, and for what purpose? > PJS: To people, for their benefit. > First, it is obvious that you are talking exclusively about a > redistribution of power among nation-states > PJS: Where is it obvious? However, yes nation states are one of the main vehicles of such redistribution, since they are still the primary vehicle of people's democratic representation ( the US constitution’s "we the people..") . And seeking to dismantle this system of democratic representation without building a more democratic one is one of the most important contemporary strategies to check redistribution of power towards the people. > – an approach that is intrinsically hostile to civil society. > PJS: Please expand this.... I think the hostility is to the rule of free unregulated market which is basically rule of big business... It is the latter's increasing power that is hostile to civil society .. > Further, I don’t think a redistribution that, say, strengthens the > Russian or Chinese states is anything to get excited about > PJS:To the extent that it can decrease illegitimate US's political and economic power (heard to the recent BRICS bank, you sure would say it is inherently hostile to 'civil society', right!) . To the extent it may empower the state vis a vis its own people, no.... Two different battles, bot important. > – or haven’t you kept your eyes on what is happening in Hong Kong? > Perhaps you will follow Putin and Xi and blame all the HK unrest of > “the U.S.”? > PJS: Slipping again into unsustainable rhetoric... Since when market fundamentalism has become revolutions friendly... I fully support the HK democratic movement, and so do colleagues inside HK who work with us. BTW, the only comment on the HK unrest I saw in IG lsits was one of Michael Gurstein showing detials of HK's Internet speeds etc and wondering whether it had to do with the protests. The whole multistakeholderist group and the Internet freedom did not utter a word... So, dont create accusations which have no basis... > All part of our attempt to maintain global hegemony. So let’s suppress > freedom and democracy in Hong Kong so we have a better distribution of > power? > PJS: Milton, you need to do better than this. > > I don’t think strengthening the Indian or Turkish or South African > states is such a great idea, either. All of them seem to be more > interested in Internet control than anything else. > Good, you were not able to bring yourself to mention India :) .. Anyway, nation state is a complex reality, and a general one kind of branding versus other may not help. Context matters. Within South Africa, almost all reform movements will be aimed against the state (happens in India and we participate in so many of them.).. At the global level, it is the US political and economic establishment which undoubtedly has the greatest concentration of power and this the greatest threat. In confronting this threat, most developing country governments can be used as allies. > Again I ask you to frame your debate and discourse in terms of > substantive policy choices and not polarized power blocs centered on > nation-states. > Well, I greatly admire the US as a nation of people. My problem is with its political and economic might which is overbearing and a threat to the world. As for substantive policy choices just go to theJust Net Coalition website , and read its Delhi Declaration as well as more than 20 statements made by it in the last 6 months. And if you find another IG group which is clearer and more profuse in offering policy choices let me know. All I have heard most IG groups is just saying over and over again, in with multistakeholder-ism, down with UN... Hardly a portfolio of "substantive policy choices". > > Your mode of discourse is essentially a Cold War mentality, where our > political choices are centered on being for or against the US. > In fact it is entirely post cold war, where the US has become a unipolar political and economic power, with no brakes or constraints, which is leading to an unsustainable concentration of power. The global Internet, born post cold war, is its prime example. Pity that there are so many in the global civil society that side with this greatest concentration of power on the global Internet "against civil society interests" to quote your somewhat flippant phrase. parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Oct 9 02:54:03 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 02:54:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <54361733.8050906@itforchange.net> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <54300582.4030002@itforchange.net> <5cc07bf192ce484fb6fcec8d03508871@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <54361733.8050906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5436310B.1040703@mail.utoronto.ca> 1. May I say that I am thoroughly enjoying this debate. 2. I think Parminder won this round. 3. Hopefully that will goad Milton into having another round... :-) Important questions. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-10-09, 1:03, parminder wrote: > > Milton > > There are two levels to this discussion, one is a simple > argumentative-ness, and a second one which in my view address the key > issue of who or which actors can and should be considered as the > primary target of global civil society advocacy, as being the prime > threats to the kind of global Internet that we want to see in global > public interest. And an associated question being, which actors are > blocking rightful public interest governance of the global Internet. > > I will first respond in this email to your largely superficial if not > misleading arguments, and address the key underlying question in my > next email. excuse my indulgence.... parminder > > > On Sunday 05 October 2014 11:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder >> >> >> Throughout this email, you seamlessly move between UN based >> international law making and US law making, which may get forced on >> the world bec of the US's economic and technical might, as if there >> isnt any real substantive difference between the two... >> >> MM: Nope. I make it very clear when I am talking about one or the >> other. Your point was “the U.S.” was preventing us from talking about >> certain issues. My contention was simply that the U.S. is talking >> about those things extensively at its own domestic level, and that >> indeed, many of those dialogues originated in the U.S. and went >> transnational. No confusion as to levels. >> > > PJS: No. I said, and I quote "We badly need a global discussions on > and adoption of a model law on IP based telecommunications, and on net > neutrality. But any such possibility will be resisted tooth and nail, > and a lot of resources thrown into it." > > What I am saying is that US and its cohorts prevent global discussion > and *adoption* of needed public policy frameworks in the IG space... > Do you content this statement. if you do, lets focus our discussion on > that. Or else, concede. > >> When did I say there is no global discussion on net neutrality ? >> >> MM: In your original post. Glad to see you backing off here. >> > > PJS: Can you please quote me, instead of insisting that I said > something which I did not, and then saying I am backing off..... What > I said is quoted above, I never said "there is no global discussion on > net neutrality". It would be stupid to say that - I myself am a member > of two global coalitions on NN. >> >> ... As for the resistance to it and the resources thrown in for that >> sake I have historical details of how an NN debate and position >> forming got resisted on the IGC list as well in the MAG, for years, >> before it was finally taken up this year, >> >> MM: Another factual error. See this, a NN workshop from 2011: >> >> http://intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article?id=883:ig4d-workshop-183-a-possible-framework-for-global-net-neutrality >> > > PJS: Again, I do know there have been workshops on NN at the IGF.... > One of them, at Baku, was actually organised by me for ITfC. Can you > stop producing meaningless and diversionary 'evidence'. > >> Yes, I know the European Commission as well as Council of Europe has >> been working on it, and I have participated especially in the >> latter's effort. >> >> MM: So apparently the “US” effort to prevent discussion has failed >> there, too. >> > > PJS: Yes, US does get away with everything it wants. We all know that. > But it has succeeding in stopping NN being taken up at any truly > global policy making/ framing forum, and you know that. > >> Well, yes. How much ever may I like to, we are just not able to come >> off the colonial and post colonial yoke. Dont we still take >> everything of worth from the west? >> >> MM: A typical Parminderism. Someone notes the irony of you claiming >> the “the U.S.” is stopping us from discussing an issue that is being >> actively discussed in large part because of US domestic politics, and >> you transmute that into a claim that everything of worth originates >> from the West. >> > > PJS: I repeat, US does try its best that global Internet related > public policy issues are not discussed and taken up by globally > democratic forums in any manner that could move towards their global > democratic resolution. As for your assertion that many of these issues > are beign discussed globally "becuase of US domestic politics", this > just betrays the symptoms of the very regrettable diseases of seeing > the US as the centre of the world that many US policy makers, and > policy commentators suffer from. It is not going to be very useful, > but still let me repeat - we discuss Internet public policy issues > globally becuase they impact us and not becuase ofUS domestic politics... > >> Apart from US and its corporate allies being the chief instigators >> for filtering the debates at the IGF, >> >> MM: The chief instigators of filtering debates at the IGF are those >> who don’t want to disturb the IG status quo, as you know well. But >> that camp includes people in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia as >> well as “the U.S.” >> > > PJS:Has it not been amply clear that the US political and business > establishment leads the pack and is its epicentre.. > >> I’ve run up against those filters as much as you have, btw, only >> about 5 years before you. Ask yourself why I wasn’t asked to be on >> the IANA transition panel at either Netmundial or IGF, for example. >> But I am from the US. Why didn’t they welcome a fellow imperialist >> hegemonic white male? How do you explain this, my friend? >> > > PJS: You are slipping into a rhetoric which has no connection to > anything I may have said. > >> Maybe there are substantive policy differences at stake that cannot >> be reduced to 1970s-vintage state-centric worldviews? >> > > PJS: Interesting! Ask Snowden how state-centric the world still is.. > That is just one example. > >> Maybe “the US” is the wrong label to be using to characterize your >> enemies? Your whole mentality is still locked into the nation-state >> mindset. >> > > PJS: This point will be addressed in my next email, >> >> The US rules the global Internet, politically and economically . Any >> civil society actor whose chief aim is a better distribution of power >> (that at least is what civil society used to be) would naturally make >> the US as its chief target. >> >> MM: But redistributing power to whom, and for what purpose? >> > > PJS: To people, for their benefit. > >> First, it is obvious that you are talking exclusively about a >> redistribution of power among nation-states >> > > PJS: Where is it obvious? However, yes nation states are one of the > main vehicles of such redistribution, since they are still the primary > vehicle of people's democratic representation ( the US constitution’s > "we the people..") . And seeking to dismantle this system of > democratic representation without building a more democratic one is > one of the most important contemporary strategies to check > redistribution of power towards the people. > > >> – an approach that is intrinsically hostile to civil society. >> > > PJS: Please expand this.... I think the hostility is to the rule of > free unregulated market which is basically rule of big business... It > is the latter's increasing power that is hostile to civil society .. > >> Further, I don’t think a redistribution that, say, strengthens the >> Russian or Chinese states is anything to get excited about >> > > PJS:To the extent that it can decrease illegitimate US's political and > economic power (heard to the recent BRICS bank, you sure would say it > is inherently hostile to 'civil society', right!) . To the extent it > may empower the state vis a vis its own people, no.... Two different > battles, bot important. > >> – or haven’t you kept your eyes on what is happening in Hong Kong? >> Perhaps you will follow Putin and Xi and blame all the HK unrest of >> “the U.S.”? >> > > PJS: Slipping again into unsustainable rhetoric... Since when market > fundamentalism has become revolutions friendly... I fully support the > HK democratic movement, and so do colleagues inside HK who work with > us. BTW, the only comment on the HK unrest I saw in IG lsits was one > of Michael Gurstein showing detials of HK's Internet speeds etc and > wondering whether it had to do with the protests. The whole > multistakeholderist group and the Internet freedom did not utter a > word... So, dont create accusations which have no basis... > >> All part of our attempt to maintain global hegemony. So let’s >> suppress freedom and democracy in Hong Kong so we have a better >> distribution of power? >> > PJS: Milton, you need to do better than this. >> >> I don’t think strengthening the Indian or Turkish or South African >> states is such a great idea, either. All of them seem to be more >> interested in Internet control than anything else. >> > > Good, you were not able to bring yourself to mention India :) .. > Anyway, nation state is a complex reality, and a general one kind of > branding versus other may not help. Context matters. Within South > Africa, almost all reform movements will be aimed against the state > (happens in India and we participate in so many of them.).. At the > global level, it is the US political and economic establishment which > undoubtedly has the greatest concentration of power and this the > greatest threat. In confronting this threat, most developing country > governments can be used as allies. > >> Again I ask you to frame your debate and discourse in terms of >> substantive policy choices and not polarized power blocs centered on >> nation-states. >> > > Well, I greatly admire the US as a nation of people. My problem is > with its political and economic might which is overbearing and a > threat to the world. As for substantive policy choices just go to > theJust Net Coalition website , and > read its Delhi Declaration > as well as more > than 20 statements made by it in the last 6 months. And if you find > another IG group which is clearer and more profuse in offering policy > choices let me know. All I have heard most IG groups is just saying > over and over again, in with multistakeholder-ism, down with UN... > Hardly a portfolio of "substantive policy choices". >> >> Your mode of discourse is essentially a Cold War mentality, where our >> political choices are centered on being for or against the US. >> > > In fact it is entirely post cold war, where the US has become a > unipolar political and economic power, with no brakes or constraints, > which is leading to an unsustainable concentration of power. The > global Internet, born post cold war, is its prime example. Pity that > there are so many in the global civil society that side with this > greatest concentration of power on the global Internet "against civil > society interests" to quote your somewhat flippant phrase. > > > parminder >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Thu Oct 9 04:47:36 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:47:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] [CFP] 11th Intl. Conf. on Open Source Systems (OSS2015) Message-ID: <00ae01cfe39d$ac8260f0$058722d0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] **************************************************************************** *************** 11th Intl. Conf. on Open Source Systems (OSS2015) co-located with the 2015 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE2015) Florence, Italy – 16-17 May 2015 http://www.oss2015.org **************************************************************************** *************** *** Theme: Open Frameworks: from Service to Cloud *** Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has had a disruptive effect on the commercial software industry and the ways that organizations and individuals create, distribute, acquire and use software and software-based services. In addition to the many standalone FOSS projects, FOSS is at the heart of modern network-based computing infrastructures and can be found in the vast majority of applications that run in these environments. Many organizations that have been known for developing proprietary software are now actively involved with FOSS. FOSS adoption continues to grow among businesses, governments, and other organizations. FOSS remains important for educators and researchers, as well as an important aspect of e-government and information society initiatives, providing access to high-quality software and the code used to create it. Also, FOSS has taken the lead in a number of crucial ICT domains, like Cloud Computing, where open source cloud stacks are widely adopted, and Big Data, where a wealth of FOSS solutions is now being built around Hadoop. The 11th International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS 2015) will celebrate a decade of advances in the use of free and open source software by emphasizing areas and topics that will drive future use over the next decade. This will be achieved through a combination of high-quality research papers, tutorials, workshops, demonstrations, and invited talks. OSS2015 will be co-located with the 2015 International Conference on Software Engineering as a way to cross-fertilize ideas. The theme for the 2015 edition will be "Open frameworks: from service to cloud", putting forward the idea on how open source framework can develop the transition from traditional IT services to cloud-based architectures. A central goal of OSS 2015 is to provide an international forum where a diverse community of professionals from academia, industry, the public sector, and diverse FOSS initiatives can come together to share research findings and practical experiences. The conference also aims to serve as a meeting place where people can identify new research ideas and techniques for putting FOSS into widespread use. OSS 2015 will include research papers, industry papers, formal tool demonstrations, lightning talks, new ideas, experience reports, and posters. OSS 2015 also invites proposals for tutorials and workshops, submissions to the doctoral symposium, and submissions of panel proposals. Accepted papers will be included in the conference proceedings, which are published by Springer. ** Topics We are seeking submissions across a broad range of topics, but are particularly interested in those areas most likely to have an impact on computing over the next decade, including computing infrastructure, data management, and the Internet of Things. For practical experiences, we are seeking submissions that describe FOSS applications in embedded systems (IoT), health care, transportation, communications, and energy management. Other topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: - FOSS technologies - FOSS in the cloud - FOSS for data management and analysis - Security of FOSS - Interoperability, portability, scalability of FOSS - Open standards, open data, open cloud, open hardware and open exhibits - FOSS in cloud-based applications - Architecture and design of FOSS - Mobile and Embedded FOSS - Mobile Operating Systems - Open Source apps for mobile devices - Open Source app markets and software delivery platforms - Software metrics for Open Source mobile software - Energy efficiency in Mobile FOSS - FOSS Quality - Static and Dynamic FOSS testing - Formal FOSS verification - Detection of bad coding practices and adoption of coding conventions - OSS metrics: measuring FOSS performance, safety, and quality - FOSS performance - FOSS Evaluation, adoption and use - Evaluation of FOSS software, including comparisons with proprietary software, in industry and government - Use and acceptance of FOSS; organizational policies - The role of FOSS-oriented foundations - Dissemination, redistribution and crowdsourcing of FOSS systems - Expanding scientific research and technology development methods through openness - Role of FOSS in ICT and sustainable development -FOSS practices and methods - New experiences with FOSS development tools and practices - Knowledge and documentation management in FOSS - Economic, organizational and social issues related to FOSS - Economic analysis of FOSS - Maturity models of FOSS - FOSS in public sector - FOSS intellectual property, copyrights and licensing - Non-Governmental Organizations and FOSS - FOSS and education - Teaching FOSS to people of all ages and backgrounds - Use of FOSS in education -FOSS platforms and toolkits - FOSS Data processing and storage platforms - FOSS environments for cloud computing - FOSS business intelligence toolkits - FOSS business packages (CRM, ERP, HRM) - FOSS collaboration and communication environments ** Important Dates - Paper Submission due: January 10, 2015 - Notification to Authors: February 14, 2015 - Camera ready due: February 28, 2015 ** Authors Instructions Papers submitted to OSS 2015 must not have been published elsewhere and must not be under review or submitted for review elsewhere while under consideration for OSS 2015. All papers must conform, at time of submission, to the Springer Formatting Guidelines (LNCS) (http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-6-793341-0). You may utilize the templates provided in our website. Submissions must be in PDF format with a limit of 10 pages for each paper. All submissions will be peer-reviewed double blinded, therefore please remove any information that could give an indication of the authorship or affiliations. Authors of accepted papers will be therefore be required to sign a copyright transfer (as well as register for and attend the conference). When your paper is finished, submit it using EasyChair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=oss2015) according to the submission deadlines. ** Organizing Committee * General Chair - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Program Chairs - Dirk Riehle, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany - Tony Wasserman, Carnegie Mellon University, USA * Regional Publicity Chairs - Moataz Ahmed, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Saudi Arabia - Karl Reed, La Trobe University, Australia * Organizing Chairs - Fulvio Frati, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Nadia Fusar Poli, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Web Chair - Fulvio Frati, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Program Committee - Chintan Amrit, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Luciano Baresi, DEIB – Politecnico di Milano, Italy - Paolo Ciancarini, University of Bologna, Italy - Francesco Di Cerbo, SAP Research Sophia-Antipolis, France - Jonas Gamalielsson, University of Skovde, Sweden - Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain - Imed Hammouda, Chalmers and University of Gothenburg, Sweden - Abram Hindle, University of Alberta, Canada - Netta Iivari, University of Oulu, Finland - Stefan Koch, Bogazici University, Turkey - Fabio Kon, University of São Paulo, Brasil - Luigi Lavazza, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Italy - Eda Marchetti, ISTI-CNR, Italy - Audris Mockus, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA - Sandro Morasca, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Italy - John Noll, Lero – the Irish Software Engineering Research Centre, Ireland - Mauro Pezzè, University of Lugano, Switzerland - Stephane Ribas, INRIA, France - Gregorio Robles, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Italy - Steve Schmid, Open Technology Foundation, Australia - Alberto Sillitti, Free University of Bozen/Bolzano, Italy - Diomidis Spinellis, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece - Megan Squire, Elon University, USA - Klaas-Jan Stol, Lero – University of Limerick, Ireland - Giancarlo Succi, Free University of Bozen/Bolzano, Italy - Davide Tosi, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Italy - Aaron Visaggio, University of Sannio, Italy - Stefano Zacchiroli, Université de Paris Diderot, France -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Thu Oct 9 10:54:53 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 10:54:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Canada Internet Forum Message-ID: The panel at 3:15pm with Michael Geist looks interesting. joly posted: "Today Thursday October 9 2014 the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is hosting the Canada Internet Forum 2014. The agenda includes video presentations from Vint Cerf and Fadi Chehadé. The event is being webcast live via YouTube. Ottawa is on" [image: Canada Internet Forum] Today *Thursday October 9 2014* the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is hosting the *Canada Internet Forum 2014 *. The agenda includes video presentations from *Vint Cerf* and *Fadi Chehadé*. The event is being webcast live via YouTube . Ottawa is on EDT, sama as NYC (UTC-4). *What*: Canada Internet Forum 2014 *Where*: Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa *When*: Thursday October 9 2014 8am– 5:45pm EDT | 1200-2145 UTC *Agenda*: http://www.cira.ca/assets/Documents/CIF/2014-agenda.pdf *Webcast*: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-CRM29tW4 *Twitter*: #CIRAif Comment See all comments *Permalink*: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7075 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 10 08:53:47 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:23:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PK's 2-pager on ITU and Plenipot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5437D6DB.2090406@itforchange.net> On Friday 10 October 2014 12:21 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Available at: > > https://www.publicknowledge.org/documents/international-telecommunication-union-itu-plenipotentiary-conference > Carolina, So what the Public Knowledge is basically saying is that the ITU should practically do nothing, more or less. I mean I saw nothing in this statement about what it should actually do given that the plenipotentiary is the occasion on which the ITU revisits its complete work program. Well yes there is something about WTDC working groups but no clarity about what exactly they can and should do. For instance, the very formation of BestBits was informed by the need for a "positive agenda". Where is a positive agenda ever? After all, in a time of ICTs driven global social revolution/ transformation there must be something to do in the communication, ICTs and Internet space. What should ITU do about this new situation to make sure that things serve global public interest, and if the ITU is to be doing little or nothing, who should be doing it. Not only in your submission but also elsewhere (it seems to be happening all together), I see a creeping assertion that multistakeholder "decision making" should extend beyond technical areas to substantive Internet-related public policy making areas of many different kinds. Please do let me know if I am wrong in this interpretation, which in fact comes quite clearly in your submission. You say ITU should not be exploring a treaty on cyber-security, which I would suppose people would agree is urgently needed in this period of extreme cyber insecurity... So, if ITU should not do the work towards such a treaty, who do you think should do it? The UN's first committee working on security issues, which has done some work on cyber-security? Or are you proposing a multistakeholder body should do such a treaty, in which case too please do put forward your proposal.. These are serious issues of Internet governance today, and should be discussed thoroughly.... Just telling the ITU to open up all its documents but then really to do nothing really substantive does not appear to me to an adequate response to where the world stands vis a vis the Internet and its democratic governance. parminder PS: I cc ed two other elists bec this is an important matter deserving a good discussion . > > > -- > /Carolina Rossini / > /Vice President, International Policy/ > *Public Knowledge* > _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_ > + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Oct 10 10:06:12 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 19:36:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PK's 2-pager on ITU and Plenipot In-Reply-To: <5437D6DB.2090406@itforchange.net> References: <5437D6DB.2090406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <148fa618098.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Ah, a cybersecurity treaty. A non proliferation treaty? When there is no shortage of non state actors dealing in malware, who have historically provided arms length and plausible deniablity for previous efforts in the interest of various nation states? Or an enforcement treaty on the lines of the Budapest convention, which would not be entirely in scope for a civilian agency like ITU whose constituency is telecom ministries and regulatory authorities? And to which in any case most if not all the very few nation states that are collectively the largest sources of online crime are not members? What specific sort of treaty and how is it to be enforced? Some details would be great to back all those airy assertions about the pk paper On 10 October 2014 6:24:35 pm parminder wrote: > On Friday 10 October 2014 12:21 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > Available at: > > > > > https://www.publicknowledge.org/documents/international-telecommunication-union-itu-plenipotentiary-conference > > > > Carolina, > > So what the Public Knowledge is basically saying is that the ITU should > practically do nothing, more or less. I mean I saw nothing in this > statement about what it should actually do given that the > plenipotentiary is the occasion on which the ITU revisits its complete > work program. Well yes there is something about WTDC working groups but > no clarity about what exactly they can and should do. For instance, the > very formation of BestBits was informed by the need for a "positive > agenda". Where is a positive agenda ever? After all, in a time of ICTs > driven global social revolution/ transformation there must be something > to do in the communication, ICTs and Internet space. What should ITU do > about this new situation to make sure that things serve global public > interest, and if the ITU is to be doing little or nothing, who should be > doing it. > > Not only in your submission but also elsewhere (it seems to be happening > all together), I see a creeping assertion that multistakeholder > "decision making" should extend beyond technical areas to substantive > Internet-related public policy making areas of many different kinds. > Please do let me know if I am wrong in this interpretation, which in > fact comes quite clearly in your submission. > > You say ITU should not be exploring a treaty on cyber-security, which I > would suppose people would agree is urgently needed in this period of > extreme cyber insecurity... So, if ITU should not do the work towards > such a treaty, who do you think should do it? The UN's first committee > working on security issues, which has done some work on cyber-security? > Or are you proposing a multistakeholder body should do such a treaty, in > which case too please do put forward your proposal.. > > These are serious issues of Internet governance today, and should be > discussed thoroughly.... Just telling the ITU to open up all its > documents but then really to do nothing really substantive does not > appear to me to an adequate response to where the world stands vis a vis > the Internet and its democratic governance. > > parminder > > PS: I cc ed two other elists bec this is an important matter deserving a > good discussion . > > > > > > > > -- > > /Carolina Rossini / > > /Vice President, International Policy/ > > *Public Knowledge* > > _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_ > > + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Fri Oct 10 14:51:29 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:51:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?MEETUP=3A_NYC_Remote_Hub_for_ICANN51_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=93_Thursday_Oct_16_2014_=E2=80=93_Register_Now!?= Message-ID: ISOC-NY is active within ICANN, both as an At-Large Structure, and as a member of the Noncommercial Constituency in the GNSO. We will be well represented in Los Angeles by President David Solomonoff and Board Member Avri Doria, amongst others. Now stick-at-homers will also have an opportunity to get involved as, for the first time, we will set up an interactive remote hub for the Public Forum (plus two earlier sessions related to accountability and the IANA transition). ICANN have given us generous support so we will be providing lunch for those who attend the whole day. Space is limited so please only register if you are absolutely attending. joly posted: "On Thursday October 16 2014 the Internet Society's New York Chapter (ISOC-NY), Connecting .nyc, and the Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic (BLIP) will host a Remote Hub for the 51st Meeting of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Number" [image: NYC ICANN 51]On *Thursday October 16 2014* the *Internet Society's New York Chapter* (ISOC-NY),* Connecting .nyc *, and the *Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic* (BLIP) will host a Remote Hub for the *51st Meeting of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers * aka *ICANN 51*, taking place in *Los Angeles*. The hub will be fully interactive, with 2-way video, and participate in 3 sessions. Plentiful refreshments will be supplied, courtesy of ICANN. Please *register* via *ISOC-NY's meetup* , or by emailing* admin at isoc-ny.org *. *What: NYC Remote Hub for ICANN 51 Where: Blip Clinic Dumbo Outpost, 55 Washington St #321, Brooklyn, NY 11201 (map ) When: Thursday October 16 2014 11am-8pm EDT 1. Enhancing ICANN Accountability 11:30am-12:45pm EDT 2. Community Discussion with the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) 1pm-3pm EDT 3. Public Forum 4:30pm-8pm EDT Register: http://www.meetup.com/isoc-ny/events/212661472/ Twitter: #icann51 | #remotehub * Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7079 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 17:48:03 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 21:48:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 Message-ID: The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. As you know, CSCG is a "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations. In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society representatives were ending their terms this year - an unusually high number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as outlined below. We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG members. *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society representatives. In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent civil society. Sincerely *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications representative Ian Peter, Independent Chair Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group - brief descriptions* · Association for Progressive Communications, an international membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy and affordable access to a free and open internet. · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance. · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members in 120 countries · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo's Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically address emerging internet governance issues. · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural interests. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 18:56:13 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 10:56:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52113833-D217-4886-A022-368705FEFE04@gmail.com> Well done, and many thanks. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. > > As you know, CSCG is a “coalition of coalitions” of the major civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives > > After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. > > 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations. > > > In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society representatives were ending their terms this year – an unusually high number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as outlined below. > > We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG members. > > 1. Sunil Abraham (India) > 2. Renata Avila (Guatemala) > 3. Oh Byoungil (South Korea) > 4. John Dada (Nigeria) > 5. Avri Doria (USA) > 6. Stuart Hamilton (United Kingdom) > 7. Lea Kaspar (Croatia). > 8. Jak SM Kee (Malaysia). > 9. Ephraim Percy Kenyanito (Kenya) > 10. Virginia Paque (Venezuela) > > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the continued involvement of Fatima Cambronero (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society representatives. > > In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > > We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent civil society. > > > > Sincerely > > > > 2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee > > Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative > > Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative > > Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative > > Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications representative > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. > > > > Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group – brief descriptions > > · Association for Progressive Communications, an international membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy and affordable access to a free and open internet. > · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance. > · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members in 120 countries > · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. > · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically address emerging internet governance issues. > · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. > · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural interests. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Oct 10 21:17:07 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 06:47:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is among the best slates of mag nominations I have seen in the recent past. Congratulations to all concerned and thanks to the nomcom. --srs (iPad) > On 11-Oct-2014, at 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. > > As you know, CSCG is a “coalition of coalitions” of the major civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives > > After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. > > 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations. > > > In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society representatives were ending their terms this year – an unusually high number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as outlined below. > > We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG members. > > 1. Sunil Abraham (India) > 2. Renata Avila (Guatemala) > 3. Oh Byoungil (South Korea) > 4. John Dada (Nigeria) > 5. Avri Doria (USA) > 6. Stuart Hamilton (United Kingdom) > 7. Lea Kaspar (Croatia). > 8. Jak SM Kee (Malaysia). > 9. Ephraim Percy Kenyanito (Kenya) > 10. Virginia Paque (Venezuela) > > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the continued involvement of Fatima Cambronero (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society representatives. > > In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > > We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent civil society. > > > > Sincerely > > > > 2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee > > Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative > > Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative > > Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative > > Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications representative > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. > > > > Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group – brief descriptions > > · Association for Progressive Communications, an international membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy and affordable access to a free and open internet. > · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance. > · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members in 120 countries > · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. > · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically address emerging internet governance issues. > · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. > · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural interests. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Oct 10 21:20:46 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 06:50:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet References: Message-ID: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in terms, though possibly this is from a group less concerned with the finer points of igov jargon than most of the existing actors are? They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on how they plan to work this into an iGov model. --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: > From: "Dave Farber via ip" > Date: 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST > To: "ip" > Subject: [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet > Reply-To: dave at farber.net > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Ram Mohan" > Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM > Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet > To: "Dave Farber" > Cc: "Ram Mohan" > > Dave, > > Here is a piece from a press release by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to “build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet” that might be interesting to the IP readership. > > > > Excerpt below: > > “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over 50 initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, with the aim of contributing positive, transformative change to the global agenda, as well as those of industry, business and the world’s regions. These include a public-private initiative to help achieve zero net tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet; and the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which work with governments worldwide to improve economic opportunity for the female half of the population.” > > > > -Ram > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Sat Oct 11 12:19:30 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:19:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet In-Reply-To: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> References: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> Message-ID: <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> Hi The ill-chosen wording has been pointed out to the WEF and the text has been changed. It now says "a multistakeholder endeavour to stimulate more cross-industry and cross-ministry strategic dialogue on ways to strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance ‎and cooperation.” This is a separate track of activity from the NMI/platform for collaborative projects. http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-address-new-global-context?news=page Best Bill On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in terms, though possibly this is from a group less concerned with the finer points of igov jargon than most of the existing actors are? > > They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on how they plan to work this into an iGov model. > > --srs (iPad) > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Dave Farber via ip" >> Date: 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST >> To: "ip" >> Subject: [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet >> Reply-To: dave at farber.net >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Ram Mohan" >> Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM >> Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet >> To: "Dave Farber" >> Cc: "Ram Mohan" >> >> Dave, >> >> Here is a piece from a press release by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to “build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet” that might be interesting to the IP readership. >> >> >> Excerpt below: >> >> “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over 50 initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, with the aim of contributing positive, transformative change to the global agenda, as well as those of industry, business and the world’s regions. These include a public-private initiative to help achieve zero net tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet; and the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which work with governments worldwide to improve economic opportunity for the female half of the population.” >> >> >> -Ram >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 11 12:48:59 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 22:18:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet In-Reply-To: <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> References: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54395F7B.70807@itforchange.net> On Saturday 11 October 2014 09:49 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > The ill-chosen wording has been pointed out to the WEF and the text > has been changed. Real quick stuff, i'd say, from both sides :) .... parminder > It now says "a multistakeholder endeavour to stimulate more > cross-industry and cross-ministry strategic dialogue on ways to > strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance ‎and cooperation.” > This is a separate track of activity from the NMI/platform for > collaborative projects. > > http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-address-new-global-context?news=page > > Best > > Bill > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in terms, >> though possibly this is from a group less concerned with the finer >> points of igov jargon than most of the existing actors are? >> >> They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on how >> they plan to work this into an iGov model. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> *From:* "Dave Farber via ip" > >>> *Date:* 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST >>> *To:* "ip" > >>> *Subject:* *[IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral >>> architecture to govern internet* >>> *Reply-To:* dave at farber.net >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Ram Mohan" > >>> Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM >>> Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to >>> govern internet >>> To: "Dave Farber" > >>> Cc: "Ram Mohan" > >>> >>> Dave, >>> >>> Here is a piece from a press release >>> >>> by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to “build a >>> broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the >>> internet” that might be interesting to the IP readership. >>> >>> >>> Excerpt below: >>> >>> “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over 50 >>> initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, with the aim >>> of contributing positive, transformative change to the global >>> agenda, as well as those of industry, business and the world’s >>> regions. These include a public-private initiative to help achieve >>> zero net tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural >>> commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, >>> multilateral global architecture for governing the internet; and the >>> Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which work with governments >>> worldwide to improve economic opportunity for the female half of the >>> population.” >>> >>> >>> -Ram >>> >>> >>> >>> [Powered by Listbox] >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 fatimacambronero at gmail.com Sat Oct 11 17:51:15 2014 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:51:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Thanks for this information. I also want to thank you all for continuing to support me in this role of MAG member as civil society representative. I will do my best to represent our interests. Congratulations to all the colleagues selected! Best Regards, Fatima 2014-10-10 22:17 GMT-03:00 Suresh Ramasubramanian : > This is among the best slates of mag nominations I have seen in the recent > past. Congratulations to all concerned and thanks to the nomcom. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 11-Oct-2014, at 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is > pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil > society representation on MAG 2015. > > As you know, CSCG is a "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil > society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated > areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a > co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making > civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* > > After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations > within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their > individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for > endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names > short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups > working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively > on behalf of public interest concerns. > > 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS > networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where > appropriate) on MAG discussions. > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and > constructively in the MAG deliberations. > > > > In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the > advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society > representatives were ending their terms this year - an unusually high > number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new > members as outlined below. > > We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil > society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full > application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG > members. > > *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) > > *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) > > *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) > > *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) > > *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) > > *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) > > *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). > > *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). > > *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) > > *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) > > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms > have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose > term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima > to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the > continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the > continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only > remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In > doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are > civil society representatives. > > In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of > very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in > its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite > their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, > should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional > representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very > pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society > people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > > > > We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to > discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF > Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we > thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise > and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to > represent civil society. > > > > Sincerely > > > > *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* > > Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative > > Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative > > Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative > > Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive > Communications representative > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee > discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she > intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not > participate in the Nominating Committee. > > > > *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination > Group - brief descriptions* > > · Association for Progressive Communications, an international > membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to > empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy > and affordable access to a free and open internet. > > · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across > the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and > joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil > society interests in Internet governance. > > · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members > in 120 countries > > · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants > from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage > effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo's > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over > 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. > > · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 > organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically > address emerging internet governance issues. > > · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with > specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. > > · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of > more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop > Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development > process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN > policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and > cultural interests. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Oct 11 20:37:21 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 06:07:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet In-Reply-To: <54395F7B.70807@itforchange.net> References: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> <54395F7B.70807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks Bill And this is one of those rare occasions where I find myself agreeing with Parminder. So thanks Parminder too. Really quick work. --srs (iPad) > On 11-Oct-2014, at 22:18, parminder wrote: > > >> On Saturday 11 October 2014 09:49 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> The ill-chosen wording has been pointed out to the WEF and the text has been changed. > > Real quick stuff, i'd say, from both sides :) .... parminder > >> It now says "a multistakeholder endeavour to stimulate more cross-industry and cross-ministry strategic dialogue on ways to strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance ‎and cooperation.” This is a separate track of activity from the NMI/platform for collaborative projects. >> >> http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-address-new-global-context?news=page >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>> "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in terms, though possibly this is from a group less concerned with the finer points of igov jargon than most of the existing actors are? >>> >>> They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on how they plan to work this into an iGov model. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: "Dave Farber via ip" >>>> Date: 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST >>>> To: "ip" >>>> Subject: [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet >>>> Reply-To: dave at farber.net >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: "Ram Mohan" >>>> Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM >>>> Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet >>>> To: "Dave Farber" >>>> Cc: "Ram Mohan" >>>> >>>> Dave, >>>> >>>> Here is a piece from a press release by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to “build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet” that might be interesting to the IP readership. >>>> >>>> >>>> Excerpt below: >>>> >>>> “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over 50 initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, with the aim of contributing positive, transformative change to the global agenda, as well as those of industry, business and the world’s regions. These include a public-private initiative to help achieve zero net tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet; and the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which work with governments worldwide to improve economic opportunity for the female half of the population.” >>>> >>>> >>>> -Ram >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Sat Oct 11 21:36:25 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:36:25 +1100 Subject: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet In-Reply-To: References: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> <54395F7B.70807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5BCD4550870A4D28B01FE22073F16BFD@Toshiba> a beautiful example of multistakeholder coagulation – a state that arrives when too much spin is applied. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 11:37 AM To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet Thanks Bill And this is one of those rare occasions where I find myself agreeing with Parminder. So thanks Parminder too. Really quick work. --srs (iPad) On 11-Oct-2014, at 22:18, parminder wrote: On Saturday 11 October 2014 09:49 PM, William Drake wrote: Hi The ill-chosen wording has been pointed out to the WEF and the text has been changed. Real quick stuff, i'd say, from both sides :) .... parminder It now says "a multistakeholder endeavour to stimulate more cross-industry and cross-ministry strategic dialogue on ways to strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance ‎and cooperation.” This is a separate track of activity from the NMI/platform for collaborative projects. http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-address-new-global-context?news=page Best Bill On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in terms, though possibly this is from a group less concerned with the finer points of igov jargon than most of the existing actors are? They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on how they plan to work this into an iGov model. --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: From: "Dave Farber via ip" Date: 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST To: "ip" Subject: [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet Reply-To: dave at farber.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ram Mohan" Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet To: "Dave Farber" Cc: "Ram Mohan" Dave, Here is a piece from a press release by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to “build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet” that might be interesting to the IP readership. Excerpt below: “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over 50 initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, with the aim of contributing positive, transformative change to the global agenda, as well as those of industry, business and the world’s regions. These include a public-private initiative to help achieve zero net tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet; and the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which work with governments worldwide to improve economic opportunity for the female half of the population.” -Ram ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Sat Oct 11 21:53:21 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 07:23:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet In-Reply-To: <5BCD4550870A4D28B01FE22073F16BFD@Toshiba> References: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> <54395F7B.70807@itforchange.net> <5BCD4550870A4D28B01FE22073F16BFD@Toshiba> Message-ID: <67256847-B5F3-4E87-BC0B-DAE12D7A9549@hserus.net> This huge round the world trip of one igov conf after the other is kind of like a centrifuge :) --srs (iPad) > On 12-Oct-2014, at 07:06, Ian Peter wrote: > > a beautiful example of multistakeholder coagulation – a state that arrives when too much spin is applied. > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 11:37 AM > To: parminder > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet > > Thanks Bill > > And this is one of those rare occasions where I find myself agreeing with Parminder. So thanks Parminder too. Really quick work. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 11-Oct-2014, at 22:18, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> On Saturday 11 October 2014 09:49 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> The ill-chosen wording has been pointed out to the WEF and the text has been changed. >> >> Real quick stuff, i'd say, from both sides :) .... parminder >> >>> It now says "a multistakeholder endeavour to stimulate more cross-industry and cross-ministry strategic dialogue on ways to strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance ‎and cooperation.” This is a separate track of activity from the NMI/platform for collaborative projects. >>> >>> http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-address-new-global-context?news=page >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in terms, though possibly this is from a group less concerned with the finer points of igov jargon than most of the existing actors are? >>>> >>>> They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on how they plan to work this into an iGov model. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: "Dave Farber via ip" >>>>> Date: 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST >>>>> To: "ip" >>>>> Subject: [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet >>>>> Reply-To: dave at farber.net >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: "Ram Mohan" >>>>> Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM >>>>> Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet >>>>> To: "Dave Farber" >>>>> Cc: "Ram Mohan" >>>>> >>>>> Dave, >>>>> >>>>> Here is a piece from a press release by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to “build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet” that might be interesting to the IP readership. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Excerpt below: >>>>> >>>>> “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over 50 initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, with the aim of contributing positive, transformative change to the global agenda, as well as those of industry, business and the world’s regions. These include a public-private initiative to help achieve zero net tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet; and the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which work with governments worldwide to improve economic opportunity for the female half of the population.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Ram >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Sat Oct 11 22:01:54 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:01:54 +1100 Subject: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet In-Reply-To: <67256847-B5F3-4E87-BC0B-DAE12D7A9549@hserus.net> References: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> <54395F7B.70807@itforchange.net> <5BCD4550870A4D28B01FE22073F16BFD@Toshiba> <67256847-B5F3-4E87-BC0B-DAE12D7A9549@hserus.net> Message-ID: egocentrifuge? (apologies for plays on words – a state of normal seriousness will no doubt resume sometime) From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 12:53 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder ; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet This huge round the world trip of one igov conf after the other is kind of like a centrifuge :) --srs (iPad) On 12-Oct-2014, at 07:06, Ian Peter wrote: a beautiful example of multistakeholder coagulation – a state that arrives when too much spin is applied. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 11:37 AM To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet Thanks Bill And this is one of those rare occasions where I find myself agreeing with Parminder. So thanks Parminder too. Really quick work. --srs (iPad) On 11-Oct-2014, at 22:18, parminder wrote: On Saturday 11 October 2014 09:49 PM, William Drake wrote: Hi The ill-chosen wording has been pointed out to the WEF and the text has been changed. Real quick stuff, i'd say, from both sides :) .... parminder It now says "a multistakeholder endeavour to stimulate more cross-industry and cross-ministry strategic dialogue on ways to strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance ‎and cooperation.” This is a separate track of activity from the NMI/platform for collaborative projects. http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-address-new-global-context?news=page Best Bill On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in terms, though possibly this is from a group less concerned with the finer points of igov jargon than most of the existing actors are? They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on how they plan to work this into an iGov model. --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: From: "Dave Farber via ip" Date: 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST To: "ip" Subject: [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet Reply-To: dave at farber.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ram Mohan" Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet To: "Dave Farber" Cc: "Ram Mohan" Dave, Here is a piece from a press release by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to “build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet” that might be interesting to the IP readership. Excerpt below: “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over 50 initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, with the aim of contributing positive, transformative change to the global agenda, as well as those of industry, business and the world’s regions. These include a public-private initiative to help achieve zero net tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet; and the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which work with governments worldwide to improve economic opportunity for the female half of the population.” -Ram ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Sat Oct 11 22:08:26 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 07:38:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet In-Reply-To: References: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> <54395F7B.70807@itforchange.net> <5BCD4550870A4D28B01FE22073F16BFD@Toshiba> <67256847-B5F3-4E87-BC0B-DAE12D7A9549@hserus.net> Message-ID: <360946F4-3B30-4921-9D74-8A4E29B8BC2F@hserus.net> Apt. Do have a drink on me whenever we next meet. --srs (iPad) > On 12-Oct-2014, at 07:31, Ian Peter wrote: > > egocentrifuge? > > (apologies for plays on words – a state of normal seriousness will no doubt resume sometime) > > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 12:53 PM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder ; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet > > This huge round the world trip of one igov conf after the other is kind of like a centrifuge :) > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 12-Oct-2014, at 07:06, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> a beautiful example of multistakeholder coagulation – a state that arrives when too much spin is applied. >> >> >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 11:37 AM >> To: parminder >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; William Drake >> Subject: Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet >> >> Thanks Bill >> >> And this is one of those rare occasions where I find myself agreeing with Parminder. So thanks Parminder too. Really quick work. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >>> On 11-Oct-2014, at 22:18, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Saturday 11 October 2014 09:49 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> The ill-chosen wording has been pointed out to the WEF and the text has been changed. >>> >>> Real quick stuff, i'd say, from both sides :) .... parminder >>> >>>> It now says "a multistakeholder endeavour to stimulate more cross-industry and cross-ministry strategic dialogue on ways to strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance ‎and cooperation.” This is a separate track of activity from the NMI/platform for collaborative projects. >>>> >>>> http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-address-new-global-context?news=page >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in terms, though possibly this is from a group less concerned with the finer points of igov jargon than most of the existing actors are? >>>>> >>>>> They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on how they plan to work this into an iGov model. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>>> From: "Dave Farber via ip" >>>>>> Date: 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST >>>>>> To: "ip" >>>>>> Subject: [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet >>>>>> Reply-To: dave at farber.net >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: "Ram Mohan" >>>>>> Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM >>>>>> Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet >>>>>> To: "Dave Farber" >>>>>> Cc: "Ram Mohan" >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is a piece from a press release by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to “build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet” that might be interesting to the IP readership. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Excerpt below: >>>>>> >>>>>> “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over 50 initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, with the aim of contributing positive, transformative change to the global agenda, as well as those of industry, business and the world’s regions. These include a public-private initiative to help achieve zero net tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet; and the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which work with governments worldwide to improve economic opportunity for the female half of the population.” >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -Ram >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Oct 12 01:21:28 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 07:21:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: <543A0FD8.5000302@apc.org> I echo Anja's comments and thank you for the thanks to the outgoing MAG CS members. It is not easy being on the MAG and making a difference :) But some of us did, and, we would not have been able to if not for all the support from civil society people who are not on the MAG but who provide advice and support. So thank you to all those volunteers as well. They know who they are. Anriette On 11/10/2014 11:22, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > +1 to what Anja says! > > 2014-10-11 10:54 GMT+02:00 Anja Kovacs >: > > This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! > > Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG > for coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. > > Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If > only we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil > society's recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very > strong representation of civil society's interests in the next > year's MAG. It is really heartening to see that we can put forward > such a strong yet varied list of names, and do so in unison. > > Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society > representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the > MAG over the years. You've been wonderful. > > Warm regards, > Anja > > > On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group > (CSCG) is pleased to be able to inform you of our > recommendations as regards civil society representation on MAG > 2015. > > As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the > major civil society groups involved in the internet governance > arena and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in > working together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society > response and conduit when it comes to making civil society > appointments to outside bodies. > > *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* > > After each of our coalition members published a Call for > Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted > the names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which > would be further considered for endorsement. The CSCG > Nominating Committee considered 29 names short-listed for > final discussion, with the following criteria. > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society > groups working on internet governance issues, acting or > speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. > > 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back > to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet > governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and > constructively in the MAG deliberations. > > > > In considering names, our nominating committee firstly > considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people > considered to be civil society representatives were ending > their terms this year -€“ an unusually high number on an > annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new > members as outlined below. > > We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives > for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to > submit a full application with further details pertaining to > their suitability as MAG members. > > *1.* *Sunil Abraham*(India) > > *2.* *Renata Avila*(Guatemala) > > *3.* *Oh Byoungil*(South Korea) > > *4.* *John Dada*(Nigeria) > > *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) > > *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) > > *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). > > *8.* *Jak SM Kee*(Malaysia). > > *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) > > *10.* *Virginia Paque*(Venezuela) > > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three > year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only > civil society person whose term has not expired is Fatima > Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent > representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the > continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also > endorse the continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* > (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative > carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there > are no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society > representatives. > > In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide > range of very talented civil society representatives it was > not able to include in its recommendations. We are very > thankful for all the applicants, despite their making our job > much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF > require names of suitable and accomplished additional > representatives in providing overall regional balance, we > would be very pleased to provide additional names in > confidence of further civil society people who could make an > outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > > > > We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives > shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our > letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their > nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their > participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe > that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to > represent civil society. > > > > Sincerely > > > > *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* > > Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative > > Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative > > Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative > > Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive > Communications representative > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from > Nominating Committee discussions before nominations were > opened and criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a > candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate > in the Nominating Committee. > > > > *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co > ordination Group -€“ brief descriptions* > > · Association for Progressive Communications, an > international membership-based network founded in 1990 who > work together in using ICTs to empower and support others to > build strategic communities and promote easy and affordable > access to a free and open internet. > > · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations > from across the world, who come together to share and > collaborate on individual and joint initiatives in support of > human rights and other broadly shared civil society interests > in Internet governance. > > · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over > 1000 members in 120 countries > > · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting > participants from small and developing states to build the > capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and > diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity > Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 > professionals and activists from 163 states. > > · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with > over 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 > to specifically address emerging internet governance issues. > > · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global > coalition with specific interests in democracy, human rights > and social justice. > > · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an > organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and > individuals who develop Internet policy through participation > in ICANN's policy development process. NCSG promotes > noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy > including human rights, academic, development, educational, > and cultural interests. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Deutsche UN Sektion ∙ Internet > Governance Forum > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de > ∙ Newsletter > ∙ Facebook > ∙ Twitter ∙Youtube > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 mshears at cdt.org Sun Oct 12 02:09:10 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:09:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet In-Reply-To: <5BCD4550870A4D28B01FE22073F16BFD@Toshiba> References: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> <54395F7B.70807@itforchange.net> <5BCD4550870A4D28B01FE22073F16BFD@Toshiba> Message-ID: <543A1B06.8000702@cdt.org> Lovely Ian and so true! On 10/11/2014 6:36 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > a beautiful example of multistakeholder coagulation – a state that > arrives when too much spin is applied. > *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Sent:* Sunday, October 12, 2014 11:37 AM > *To:* parminder > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; William Drake > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build > multilateral architecture to govern internet > Thanks Bill > And this is one of those rare occasions where I find myself agreeing > with Parminder. So thanks Parminder too. Really quick work. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 11-Oct-2014, at 22:18, parminder > wrote: > >> On Saturday 11 October 2014 09:49 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi >>> The ill-chosen wording has been pointed out to the WEF and the text >>> has been changed. >> >> Real quick stuff, i'd say, from both sides :) .... parminder >> >>> It now says "a multistakeholder endeavour to stimulate more >>> cross-industry and cross-ministry strategic dialogue on ways to >>> strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance ‎and cooperation.” >>> This is a separate track of activity from the NMI/platform for >>> collaborative projects. >>> http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-address-new-global-context?news=page >>> Best >>> Bill >>> >>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in >>>> terms, though possibly this is from a group less concerned with the >>>> finer points of igov jargon than most of the existing actors are? >>>> They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on how >>>> they plan to work this into an iGov model. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> *From:* "Dave Farber via ip" > >>>>> *Date:* 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST >>>>> *To:* "ip" > >>>>> *Subject:* *[IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral >>>>> architecture to govern internet* >>>>> *Reply-To:* dave at farber.net >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: "Ram Mohan" > >>>>> Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM >>>>> Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to >>>>> govern internet >>>>> To: "Dave Farber" > >>>>> Cc: "Ram Mohan" > >>>>> >>>>> Dave, >>>>> >>>>> Here is a piece from a press release >>>>> >>>>> by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to “build a >>>>> broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the >>>>> internet” that might be interesting to the IP readership. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Excerpt below: >>>>> >>>>> “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over 50 >>>>> initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, with the >>>>> aim of contributing positive, transformative change to the global >>>>> agenda, as well as those of industry, business and the world’s >>>>> regions. These include a public-private initiative to help achieve >>>>> zero net tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural >>>>> commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, >>>>> multilateral global architecture for governing the internet; and >>>>> the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which work with governments >>>>> worldwide to improve economic opportunity for the female half of >>>>> the population.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Ram >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [Powered by Listbox] >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 12 02:27:53 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 17:27:53 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba><130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org><28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba><543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: <962E988D41EA446FBBBDA2820FAA7B66@Toshiba> Thanks Anja for the kind words about the nominations – but also for your thanks to the outgoing representatives, which I am glad has been expressed here. I would like to add thanks particularly to Anriette Esterhuysen, Bill Drake, Izumi Aizu, and Vladimir Radunovic, who I think were the most active of those retiring in feeding back to these networks in recent times. Ian Peter From: Anja Kovacs Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:54 PM To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG for coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If only we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong representation of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. It is really heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong yet varied list of names, and do so in unison. Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the MAG over the years. You've been wonderful. Warm regards, Anja On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the major civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations. In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society representatives were ending their terms this year -€“ an unusually high number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as outlined below. We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG members. 1. Sunil Abraham (India) 2. Renata Avila (Guatemala) 3. Oh Byoungil (South Korea) 4. John Dada (Nigeria) 5. Avri Doria (USA) 6. Stuart Hamilton (United Kingdom) 7. Lea Kaspar (Croatia). 8. Jak SM Kee (Malaysia). 9. Ephraim Percy Kenyanito (Kenya) 10. Virginia Paque (Venezuela) We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the continued involvement of Fatima Cambronero (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society representatives. In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent civil society. Sincerely 2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications representative Ian Peter, Independent Chair Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group -€“ brief descriptions · Association for Progressive Communications, an international membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy and affordable access to a free and open internet. · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance. · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members in 120 countries · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically address emerging internet governance issues. · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural interests. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 12 02:59:46 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 08:59:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet In-Reply-To: <543A1B06.8000702@cdt.org> References: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> <54395F7B.70807@itforchange.net> <5BCD4550870A4D28B01FE22073F16BFD@Toshiba> <543A1B06.8000702@cdt.org> Message-ID: <0bdd01cfe5ea$1c7e4920$557adb60$@gmail.com> Not to speak of multistakeholderist constipation when too much effort is being applied for too little useful output. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 8:09 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet Lovely Ian and so true! On 10/11/2014 6:36 PM, Ian Peter wrote: a beautiful example of multistakeholder coagulation – a state that arrives when too much spin is applied. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 11:37 AM To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet Thanks Bill And this is one of those rare occasions where I find myself agreeing with Parminder. So thanks Parminder too. Really quick work. --srs (iPad) On 11-Oct-2014, at 22:18, parminder wrote: On Saturday 11 October 2014 09:49 PM, William Drake wrote: Hi The ill-chosen wording has been pointed out to the WEF and the text has been changed. Real quick stuff, i'd say, from both sides :) .... parminder It now says "a multistakeholder endeavour to stimulate more cross-industry and cross-ministry strategic dialogue on ways to strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance ‎and cooperation.” This is a separate track of activity from the NMI/platform for collaborative projects. http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-address-new-global-context?news=page Best Bill On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in terms, though possibly this is from a group less concerned with the finer points of igov jargon than most of the existing actors are? They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on how they plan to work this into an iGov model. --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: From: "Dave Farber via ip" Date: 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST To: "ip" Subject: [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet Reply-To: dave at farber.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ram Mohan" Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet To: "Dave Farber" Cc: "Ram Mohan" Dave, Here is a piece from a press release by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to “build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet” that might be interesting to the IP readership. Excerpt below: “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over 50 initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, with the aim of contributing positive, transformative change to the global agenda, as well as those of industry, business and the world’s regions. These include a public-private initiative to help achieve zero net tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for governing the internet; and the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which work with governments worldwide to improve economic opportunity for the female half of the population.” -Ram ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 12 07:13:47 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 16:43:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet In-Reply-To: <0bdd01cfe5ea$1c7e4920$557adb60$@gmail.com> References: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> <54395F7B.70807@itforchange.net> <5BCD4550870A4D28B01FE22073F16BFD@Toshiba> <543A1B06.8000702@cdt.org> <0bdd01cfe5ea$1c7e4920$557adb60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <543A626B.4080806@ITforChange.net> slight change "multistakeholderist constipation when too much effort is being applied to ensure too little useful output." Guru On Sunday 12 October 2014 12:29 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Not to speak of multistakeholderist constipation when too much effort > is being applied for too little useful output. > > M > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Matthew > Shears > *Sent:* Sunday, October 12, 2014 8:09 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > *Subject:* Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build > multilateral architecture to govern internet > > Lovely Ian and so true! > > On 10/11/2014 6:36 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > a beautiful example of multistakeholder coagulation – a state that > arrives when too much spin is applied. > > *From:*Suresh Ramasubramanian > > *Sent:*Sunday, October 12, 2014 11:37 AM > > *To:*parminder > > *Cc:*governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; William Drake > > > *Subject:*Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build > multilateral architecture to govern internet > > Thanks Bill > > And this is one of those rare occasions where I find myself > agreeing with Parminder. So thanks Parminder too. Really quick work. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 11-Oct-2014, at 22:18, parminder > wrote: > > On Saturday 11 October 2014 09:49 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > The ill-chosen wording has been pointed out to the WEF and > the text has been changed. > > > Real quick stuff, i'd say, from both sides :) .... parminder > > > It now says "a multistakeholder endeavour to stimulate more > cross-industry and cross-ministry strategic dialogue on ways > to strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance ‎and > cooperation.” This is a separate track of activity from the > NMI/platform for collaborative projects. > > http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-address-new-global-context?news=page > > Best > > Bill > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > > > "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in > terms, though possibly this is from a group less concerned > with the finer points of igov jargon than most of the existing > actors are? > > They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on > how they plan to work this into an iGov model. > > --srs (iPad) > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:*"Dave Farber via ip" > > *Date:* 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST > *To:* "ip" > > *Subject:* *[IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral > architecture to govern internet* > *Reply-To:* dave at farber.net > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Ram Mohan" > > Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM > Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral > architecture to govern internet > To: "Dave Farber" > > Cc: "Ram Mohan" > > > Dave, > > Here is a piece from a press release > > by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to > “build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for > governing the internet” that might be interesting to the > IP readership. > > > Excerpt below: > > “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over > 50 initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, > with the aim of contributing positive, transformative > change to the global agenda, as well as those of industry, > business and the world’s regions. These include a > public-private initiative to help achieve zero net > tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural > commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, > multilateral global architecture for governing the > internet; and the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which > work with governments worldwide to improve economic > opportunity for the female half of the population.” > > > -Ram > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 12 08:38:17 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 08:38:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A very good choice. Congratulations everyone. Deirdre On 11 October 2014 17:51, Fatima Cambronero wrote: > Dear All, > > Thanks for this information. > I also want to thank you all for continuing to support me in this role of > MAG member as civil society representative. > I will do my best to represent our interests. > Congratulations to all the colleagues selected! > > Best Regards, > Fatima > > > 2014-10-10 22:17 GMT-03:00 Suresh Ramasubramanian : > > This is among the best slates of mag nominations I have seen in the recent >> past. Congratulations to all concerned and thanks to the nomcom. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 11-Oct-2014, at 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is >> pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil >> society representation on MAG 2015. >> >> As you know, CSCG is a “coalition of coalitions” of the major civil >> society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated >> areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a >> co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making >> civil society appointments to outside bodies. >> >> *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* >> >> After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations >> within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their >> individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for >> endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names >> short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. >> >> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups >> working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively >> on behalf of public interest concerns. >> >> 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS >> networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where >> appropriate) on MAG discussions. >> >> 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >> >> 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and >> constructively in the MAG deliberations. >> >> >> >> In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the >> advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society >> representatives were ending their terms this year – an unusually high >> number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new >> members as outlined below. >> >> We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil >> society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full >> application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG >> members. >> >> *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) >> >> *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) >> >> *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) >> >> *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) >> >> *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) >> >> *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) >> >> *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). >> >> *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). >> >> *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) >> >> *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) >> >> We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms >> have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose >> term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima >> to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the >> continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the >> continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only >> remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In >> doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are >> civil society representatives. >> >> In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of >> very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in >> its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite >> their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, >> should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional >> representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very >> pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society >> people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. >> >> >> >> We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to >> discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF >> Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we >> thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise >> and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to >> represent civil society. >> >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* >> >> Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative >> >> Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative >> >> Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative >> >> Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive >> Communications representative >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >> >> Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating >> Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria >> developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana >> (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. >> >> >> >> *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination >> Group – brief descriptions* >> >> · Association for Progressive Communications, an international >> membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to >> empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy >> and affordable access to a free and open internet. >> >> · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from >> across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual >> and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared >> civil society interests in Internet governance. >> >> · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 >> members in 120 countries >> >> · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants >> from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage >> effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over >> 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. >> >> · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 >> organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically >> address emerging internet governance issues. >> >> · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with >> specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. >> >> · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of >> more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop >> Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development >> process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN >> policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and >> cultural interests. >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Oct 12 08:38:45 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 18:08:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral architecture to govern internet In-Reply-To: <543A626B.4080806@ITforChange.net> References: <752BA017-3440-4478-AB88-285C4FEBA813@hserus.net> <64B4A30E-59B7-40CB-941A-7C52CDC66382@gmail.com> <54395F7B.70807@itforchange.net> <5BCD4550870A4D28B01FE22073F16BFD@Toshiba> <543A1B06.8000702@cdt.org> <0bdd01cfe5ea$1c7e4920$557adb60$@gmail.com> <543A626B.4080806@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <149045e2880.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> The too much effort tends to produce acute verbal diarrhea to be frank, or as they keep saying in game of thrones, 'words are wind' Crudities aside, I have long looked for places and groups that actually take presentation decks and position papers, and turn them into on the ground implementations. I keep not finding them except in very rare cases. On 12 October 2014 4:44:37 pm Guru wrote: > slight change > > "multistakeholderist constipation when too much effort is being applied > to ensure too little useful output." > > Guru > > On Sunday 12 October 2014 12:29 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > Not to speak of multistakeholderist constipation when too much effort > > is being applied for too little useful output. > > > > M > > > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Matthew > > Shears > > *Sent:* Sunday, October 12, 2014 8:09 AM > > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build > > multilateral architecture to govern internet > > > > Lovely Ian and so true! > > > > On 10/11/2014 6:36 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > a beautiful example of multistakeholder coagulation – a state that > > arrives when too much spin is applied. > > > > *From:*Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > > *Sent:*Sunday, October 12, 2014 11:37 AM > > > > *To:*parminder > > > > *Cc:*governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > ; William Drake > > > > > > *Subject:*Re: [governance] [IP] WEF says it plans to build > > multilateral architecture to govern internet > > > > Thanks Bill > > > > And this is one of those rare occasions where I find myself > > agreeing with Parminder. So thanks Parminder too. Really quick work. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > > > On 11-Oct-2014, at 22:18, parminder > > wrote: > > > > On Saturday 11 October 2014 09:49 PM, William Drake wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > The ill-chosen wording has been pointed out to the WEF and > > the text has been changed. > > > > > > Real quick stuff, i'd say, from both sides :) .... parminder > > > > > > It now says "a multistakeholder endeavour to stimulate more > > cross-industry and cross-ministry strategic dialogue on ways > > to strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance ‎and > > cooperation.” This is a separate track of activity from the > > NMI/platform for collaborative projects. > > > > > http://www.weforum.org/news/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2015-address-new-global-context?news=page > > > > Best > > > > Bill > > > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > "Broad based" and "multilateral" seem to be a contradiction in > > terms, though possibly this is from a group less concerned > > with the finer points of igov jargon than most of the existing > > actors are? > > > > They do talk about gender parity, which will be interesting on > > how they plan to work this into an iGov model. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > *From:*"Dave Farber via ip" > > > > *Date:* 11 October 2014 00:49:59 IST > > *To:* "ip" > > > *Subject:* *[IP] WEF says it plans to build multilateral > > architecture to govern internet* > > *Reply-To:* dave at farber.net > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: "Ram Mohan" > > > > Date: Oct 10, 2014 2:48 PM > > Subject: WEF says it plans to build multilateral > > architecture to govern internet > > To: "Dave Farber" > > > Cc: "Ram Mohan" > > > > > > Dave, > > > > Here is a piece from a press release > > > > > by the World Economic Forum (WEF) regarding their plan to > > “build a broad-based, multilateral global architecture for > > governing the internet” that might be interesting to the > > IP readership. > > > > > > Excerpt below: > > > > “The Annual Meeting 2015 will provide a platform for over > > 50 initiatives that are currently being led by the Forum, > > with the aim of contributing positive, transformative > > change to the global agenda, as well as those of industry, > > business and the world’s regions. These include a > > public-private initiative to help achieve zero net > > tropical deforestation caused by key agricultural > > commodities by 2020; an endeavour to build a broad-based, > > multilateral global architecture for governing the > > internet; and the Forum’s Gender Parity Taskforces, which > > work with governments worldwide to improve economic > > opportunity for the female half of the population.” > > > > > > -Ram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthew Shears > > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > > mshears at cdt.org > > + 44 771 247 2987 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Sun Oct 12 11:14:02 2014 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:14:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I believe Fatima is doing a GREAT job as part of this team for our region! Glad she will continue to do it. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 From: Fatima Cambronero Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Fatima Cambronero Date: Saturday, October 11, 2014 at 18:51 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Mawaki Chango Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 Dear All, Thanks for this information. I also want to thank you all for continuing to support me in this role of MAG member as civil society representative. I will do my best to represent our interests. Congratulations to all the colleagues selected! Best Regards, Fatima 2014-10-10 22:17 GMT-03:00 Suresh Ramasubramanian : > This is among the best slates of mag nominations I have seen in the recent > past. Congratulations to all concerned and thanks to the nomcom. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 11-Oct-2014, at 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is pleased >> to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil society >> representation on MAG 2015. >> As you know, CSCG is a ³coalition of coalitions² of the major civil society >> groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated areas.(see >> details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a co-ordinated >> civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society >> appointments to outside bodies. >> Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives >> After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations within >> their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their individual >> coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for endorsement. >> The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final >> discussion, with the following criteria. >> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working >> on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf >> of public interest concerns. >> >> 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks >> (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on >> MAG discussions. >> >> 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >> >> 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively >> in the MAG deliberations. >> >> In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the advice >> from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society >> representatives were ending their terms this year ­ an unusually high number >> on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as >> outlined below. >> We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil >> society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full application >> with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG members. >> 1. Sunil Abraham (India) >> 2. Renata Avila (Guatemala) >> 3. Oh Byoungil (South Korea) >> 4. John Dada (Nigeria) >> 5. Avri Doria (USA) >> 6. Stuart Hamilton (United Kingdom) >> 7. Lea Kaspar (Croatia). >> 8. Jak SM Kee (Malaysia). >> 9. Ephraim Percy Kenyanito (Kenya) >> 10. Virginia Paque (Venezuela) >> We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms have >> not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose term >> has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an >> excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the >> continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the >> continued involvement of Fatima Cambronero (Argentina) as the only remaining >> civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note >> that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society >> representatives. >> In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of very >> talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in its >> recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite their >> making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF >> require names of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in >> providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to provide >> additional names in confidence of further civil society people who could make >> an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. >> >> We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to discuss >> some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF Secretariat, and >> other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for >> their participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that this >> effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent civil society. >> >> Sincerely >> >> 2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee >> Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative >> Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative >> Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative >> Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications >> representative >> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >> Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee >> discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she >> intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not >> participate in the Nominating Committee. >> >> Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group >> ­ brief descriptions >> · Association for Progressive Communications, an international >> membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to >> empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy >> and affordable access to a free and open internet. >> · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across the >> world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and joint >> initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil society >> interests in Internet governance. >> · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members in >> 120 countries >> · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants from >> small and developing states to build the capacity to engage effectively in >> Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo¹s Internet Governance >> Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and >> activists from 163 states. >> · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 >> organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically address >> emerging internet governance issues. >> · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with >> specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. >> · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of more >> than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop Internet >> policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. NCSG >> promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy including >> human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural interests. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Fatima Cambronero Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Sun Oct 12 18:04:04 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 17:04:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks to all nominees, and to the nomcom for their work. I am humbled to be part of such an outstanding list, and to have the CSCG endorsement. Good luck to everyone--whoever (hopefully all) is ultimately chose for the MAG will be excellent, and will have our support and collaboration. High energy to all, Ginger On 12 October 2014 10:14, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > I believe Fatima is doing a GREAT job as part of this team for our region! > Glad she will continue to do it. > *Vanda Scartezini* > *Polo Consultores Associados* > *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004* > *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil* > *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <%2B55%2011%203266.6253>* > *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <%2B%2055%2011%2098181.1464> * > > > > > From: Fatima Cambronero > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > Fatima Cambronero > Date: Saturday, October 11, 2014 at 18:51 > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: Mawaki Chango > Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF > Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 > > Dear All, > > Thanks for this information. > I also want to thank you all for continuing to support me in this role of > MAG member as civil society representative. > I will do my best to represent our interests. > Congratulations to all the colleagues selected! > > Best Regards, > Fatima > > > 2014-10-10 22:17 GMT-03:00 Suresh Ramasubramanian : > >> This is among the best slates of mag nominations I have seen in the >> recent past. Congratulations to all concerned and thanks to the nomcom. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 11-Oct-2014, at 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is >> pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil >> society representation on MAG 2015. >> >> As you know, CSCG is a “coalition of coalitions” of the major civil >> society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated >> areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a >> co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making >> civil society appointments to outside bodies. >> >> *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* >> >> After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations >> within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their >> individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for >> endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names >> short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. >> >> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups >> working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively >> on behalf of public interest concerns. >> >> 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS >> networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where >> appropriate) on MAG discussions. >> >> 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >> >> 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and >> constructively in the MAG deliberations. >> >> >> >> In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the >> advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society >> representatives were ending their terms this year – an unusually high >> number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new >> members as outlined below. >> >> We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil >> society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full >> application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG >> members. >> >> *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) >> >> *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) >> >> *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) >> >> *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) >> >> *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) >> >> *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) >> >> *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). >> >> *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). >> >> *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) >> >> *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) >> >> We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms >> have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose >> term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima >> to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the >> continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the >> continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only >> remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In >> doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are >> civil society representatives. >> >> In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of >> very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in >> its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite >> their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, >> should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional >> representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very >> pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society >> people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. >> >> >> >> We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to >> discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF >> Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we >> thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise >> and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to >> represent civil society. >> >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* >> >> Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative >> >> Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative >> >> Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative >> >> Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive >> Communications representative >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >> >> Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating >> Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria >> developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana >> (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. >> >> >> >> *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination >> Group – brief descriptions* >> >> · Association for Progressive Communications, an international >> membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to >> empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy >> and affordable access to a free and open internet. >> >> · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from >> across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual >> and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared >> civil society interests in Internet governance. >> >> · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 >> members in 120 countries >> >> · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants >> from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage >> effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over >> 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. >> >> · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 >> organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically >> address emerging internet governance issues. >> >> · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with >> specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. >> >> · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of >> more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop >> Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development >> process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN >> policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and >> cultural interests. >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > ____________________________________________________________ You received > this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this > email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Mon Oct 13 00:22:36 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:22:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN 51 STARTED IN LOS ANGLES USA Message-ID: *Dear friends* *Today is opening ceremony of ICANN 51 in Los Angeles USA for those who are interested to fellow here is the links to * *1- **full schedule* *http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full#13oct14 * *2- **daily schedule* *http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2014-10-12 * *3- **remote participation* *http://meetings.icann.org/remote-participation * *a- **opening ceremony * *http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-welcome * *b- *a discussion on fostering e-commerce and new gTLDs (generic top-level domain names) in the region. *http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-lac-space * *c- *Update on the progress within IANA, Domain Name Services and Industry Engagement, Security, Stability and Resiliency, and the New gTLD Program. *http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-gdd * 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 13 October 2014 01:04, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks to all nominees, and to the nomcom for their work. I am humbled to > be part of such an outstanding list, and to have the CSCG endorsement. Good > luck to everyone--whoever (hopefully all) is ultimately chose for the MAG > will be excellent, and will have our support and collaboration. > > High energy to all, > Ginger > > On 12 October 2014 10:14, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > >> I believe Fatima is doing a GREAT job as part of this team for our >> region! Glad she will continue to do it. >> *Vanda Scartezini* >> *Polo Consultores Associados* >> *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004* >> *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil* >> *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <%2B55%2011%203266.6253>* >> *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <%2B%2055%2011%2098181.1464> * >> >> >> >> >> From: Fatima Cambronero >> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >> Fatima Cambronero >> Date: Saturday, October 11, 2014 at 18:51 >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >> Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Cc: Mawaki Chango >> Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF >> Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 >> >> Dear All, >> >> Thanks for this information. >> I also want to thank you all for continuing to support me in this role of >> MAG member as civil society representative. >> I will do my best to represent our interests. >> Congratulations to all the colleagues selected! >> >> Best Regards, >> Fatima >> >> >> 2014-10-10 22:17 GMT-03:00 Suresh Ramasubramanian : >> >>> This is among the best slates of mag nominations I have seen in the >>> recent past. Congratulations to all concerned and thanks to the nomcom. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 11-Oct-2014, at 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> >>> The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is >>> pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil >>> society representation on MAG 2015. >>> >>> As you know, CSCG is a “coalition of coalitions” of the major civil >>> society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated >>> areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a >>> co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making >>> civil society appointments to outside bodies. >>> >>> *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* >>> >>> After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations >>> within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their >>> individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for >>> endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names >>> short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. >>> >>> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups >>> working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively >>> on behalf of public interest concerns. >>> >>> 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS >>> networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where >>> appropriate) on MAG discussions. >>> >>> 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >>> >>> 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and >>> constructively in the MAG deliberations. >>> >>> >>> >>> In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the >>> advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society >>> representatives were ending their terms this year – an unusually high >>> number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new >>> members as outlined below. >>> >>> We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil >>> society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full >>> application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG >>> members. >>> >>> *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) >>> >>> *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) >>> >>> *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) >>> >>> *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) >>> >>> *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) >>> >>> *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) >>> >>> *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). >>> >>> *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). >>> >>> *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) >>> >>> *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) >>> >>> We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year >>> terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person >>> whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider >>> Fatima to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in >>> supporting the continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also >>> endorse the continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as >>> the only remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 >>> MAG. In doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG >>> who are civil society representatives. >>> >>> In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of >>> very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in >>> its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite >>> their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, >>> should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional >>> representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very >>> pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society >>> people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. >>> >>> >>> >>> We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to >>> discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF >>> Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we >>> thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise >>> and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to >>> represent civil society. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sincerely >>> >>> >>> >>> *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* >>> >>> Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative >>> >>> Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative >>> >>> Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative >>> >>> Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive >>> Communications representative >>> >>> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >>> >>> Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating >>> Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria >>> developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana >>> (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination >>> Group – brief descriptions* >>> >>> · Association for Progressive Communications, an international >>> membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to >>> empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy >>> and affordable access to a free and open internet. >>> >>> · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from >>> across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual >>> and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared >>> civil society interests in Internet governance. >>> >>> · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 >>> members in 120 countries >>> >>> · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants >>> from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage >>> effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s >>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over >>> 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. >>> >>> · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 >>> organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically >>> address emerging internet governance issues. >>> >>> · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with >>> specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. >>> >>> · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of >>> more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop >>> Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development >>> process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN >>> policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and >>> cultural interests. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Fatima Cambronero* >> Abogada-Argentina >> >> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 >> Twitter: @facambronero >> Skype: fatima.cambronero >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received >> this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this >> email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Mon Oct 13 00:27:46 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:27:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN 51 @ Los Angeles USA Message-ID: *Dear friends* *Today is opening ceremony of ICANN 51 in Los Angeles USA for those who are interested to fellow here is the links to * *1- **full schedule* *http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full#13oct14 * *2- **daily schedule* *http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2014-10-12 * *3- **remote participation* *http://meetings.icann.org/remote-participation * *a- **opening ceremony * *http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-welcome * *b- *a discussion on fostering e-commerce and new gTLDs (generic top-level domain names) in the region. *http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-lac-space * *c- *Update on the progress within IANA, Domain Name Services and Industry Engagement, Security, Stability and Resiliency, and the New gTLD Program. *http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-gdd * 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 13 03:31:15 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:01:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] US style Multistakeholderism Message-ID: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> A report in the Pirate Party International's magazine on what is calls as US style multistakeholderism.. http://piratetimes.net/democracy-and-hypocrisy-the-us-governments-multi-stakeholder-model/ parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 13 04:35:00 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:05:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is everything bright about the ICT revolution Message-ID: <543B8EB4.5070100@itforchange.net> "The authors of the proposal also cite the 2013 Oxford University report ‘The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to computerization?’, where 47% of all jobs in the US are said in danger of extinction at the hands of technological progress. The fields of transport, communication, office work, administration and production are all predicted to be heavily affected. “It is clear,” states the exposition, “that the current social security system will not be able to handle the costs of this immense technological progress.” " http://grapevine.is/news/2014/10/08/pirates-propose-guaranteed-minimal-income/ Issues that civil society needs to be discussing most. There is a world beyond "Internet freedom", even if we provisionally consider this concept apart from its current capture by the most dominant global economic and political forces . Has anyone really thought through what the virulent anti-governmentalism of the multi-stakeholderist front does to the future prospects of the poor? (Yes, I know the WEF ists have thought it through, I mean other more innocent followers.) Does it not at some level mean dismantling the welfare state, when it may be needed even more than before, with global corporations escaping all regulation and much of their taxation obligations. Where are these agenda in global IG, and which civil society speaks about them? Not only we need the global Internet corporations to pay their proper taxes, at places where value accures and not at the places of their incorporation (whether some fancy pacific island or the US), we also need people of the world to be able to appropriate the value that accrues from their information and their data which illegally siphoned value today runs the Internet economy.... 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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 05:18:04 2014 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:18:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations, Wishing MAG all the best, ------- *Sincerely* *Asif A. Kabani* ch.linkedin.com/in/kabani/ Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com | Skype: kabaniasif Twitter: @kabaniasif | facebook.com/kabani.asif - [image: Please consider the environment before printing] *CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER* Any unauthorised use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. This message may include any attachments that are confidential and may be privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Thank you. On 10 October 2014 23:48, Mawaki Chango wrote: > The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is > pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil > society representation on MAG 2015. > > As you know, CSCG is a “coalition of coalitions” of the major civil > society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated > areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a > co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making > civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* > > After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations > within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their > individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for > endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names > short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups > working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively > on behalf of public interest concerns. > > 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS > networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where > appropriate) on MAG discussions. > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and > constructively in the MAG deliberations. > > > > In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the > advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society > representatives were ending their terms this year – an unusually high > number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new > members as outlined below. > > We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil > society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full > application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG > members. > > *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) > > *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) > > *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) > > *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) > > *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) > > *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) > > *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). > > *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). > > *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) > > *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) > > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms > have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose > term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima > to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the > continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the > continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only > remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In > doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are > civil society representatives. > > In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of > very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in > its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite > their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, > should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional > representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very > pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society > people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > > > > We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to > discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF > Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we > thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise > and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to > represent civil society. > > > > Sincerely > > > > *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* > > Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative > > Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative > > Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative > > Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive > Communications representative > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee > discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she > intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not > participate in the Nominating Committee. > > > > *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination > Group – brief descriptions* > > · Association for Progressive Communications, an international > membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to > empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy > and affordable access to a free and open internet. > > · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across > the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and > joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil > society interests in Internet governance. > > · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members > in 120 countries > > · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants > from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage > effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over > 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. > > · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 > organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically > address emerging internet governance issues. > > · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with > specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. > > · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of > more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop > Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development > process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN > policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and > cultural interests. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 ymshana2003 at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 05:36:09 2014 From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (ymshana2003) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 Message-ID: ↑+1 Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Kabani Date:13/10/2014 11:18 (GMT+02:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Mawaki Chango Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 Congratulations, Wishing MAG all the best, ------- Sincerely  Asif A. Kabani  ch.linkedin.com/in/kabani/ Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com   | Skype: kabaniasif  Twitter: @kabaniasif  | facebook.com/kabani.asif  CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER Any unauthorised use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. This message may include any attachments that are confidential and may be privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Thank you. On 10 October 2014 23:48, Mawaki Chango wrote: The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. As you know, CSCG is a “coalition of coalitions” of the major civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated areas.(see details below).  Our role in working together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for endorsement.  The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.  2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions.  3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.  4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations.   In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society representatives were ending their terms this year – an unusually high number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as outlined below. We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG members. 1.       Sunil Abraham (India) 2.       Renata Avila (Guatemala) 3.       Oh Byoungil (South Korea) 4.       John Dada (Nigeria) 5.       Avri Doria (USA) 6.       Stuart Hamilton (United Kingdom) 7.       Lea Kaspar (Croatia). 8.       Jak SM Kee (Malaysia). 9.       Ephraim Percy Kenyanito (Kenya) 10.   Virginia Paque (Venezuela)  We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the continued involvement of Fatima Cambronero (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society representatives. In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG.   We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent civil society.   Sincerely   2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications  representative Ian Peter, Independent Chair Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee.   Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group – brief descriptions ·         Association for Progressive Communications,  an international membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy and affordable access to a free and open internet. ·         Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance. ·         Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members in 120 countries ·         Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. ·         Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically address emerging internet governance issues. ·         Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. ·         Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process.  NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural interests.      ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Oct 13 10:39:12 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:39:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Is everything bright about the ICT revolution In-Reply-To: <543B8EB4.5070100@itforchange.net> References: <543B8EB4.5070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <02c501cfe6f3$75d3f420$617bdc60$@gmail.com> For a parallel position from a rather non-Pirate source see http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21621800-digital-revolution-bringing-sweeping-change-labour-markets-both-rich-and-poor M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 1:35 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: [bestbits] Is everything bright about the ICT revolution "The authors of the proposal also cite the 2013 Oxford University report ‘The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to computerization?’, where 47% of all jobs in the US are said in danger of extinction at the hands of technological progress. The fields of transport, communication, office work, administration and production are all predicted to be heavily affected. “It is clear,” states the exposition, “that the current social security system will not be able to handle the costs of this immense technological progress.” " http://grapevine.is/news/2014/10/08/pirates-propose-guaranteed-minimal-income/ Issues that civil society needs to be discussing most. There is a world beyond "Internet freedom", even if we provisionally consider this concept apart from its current capture by the most dominant global economic and political forces . Has anyone really thought through what the virulent anti-governmentalism of the multi-stakeholderist front does to the future prospects of the poor? (Yes, I know the WEF ists have thought it through, I mean other more innocent followers.) Does it not at some level mean dismantling the welfare state, when it may be needed even more than before, with global corporations escaping all regulation and much of their taxation obligations. Where are these agenda in global IG, and which civil society speaks about them? Not only we need the global Internet corporations to pay their proper taxes, at places where value accures and not at the places of their incorporation (whether some fancy pacific island or the US), we also need people of the world to be able to appropriate the value that accrues from their information and their data which illegally siphoned value today runs the Internet economy.... 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 wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 14:28:54 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:28:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] US style Multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3C590584-E4FA-4284-86CF-647435DB6466@gmail.com> Hi On Oct 13, 2014, at 11:09 AM, David Cake wrote: > Seemed to almost entirely be a criticism of the US govts hypocrisy in talking up its commitment to multi-stakeholderism while simultaneously pursuing lobbyist led goals by other means. > As a criticism of US govt hypocrisy, its fine. As a criticism of multi-stakeholderism, its incoherent. I agree with David on both counts. BTW of relevance to the article, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/business/obama-reiterates-his-support-for-net-neutrality.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0 Bill -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 13 21:15:07 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:45:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] US style Multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <3C590584-E4FA-4284-86CF-647435DB6466@gmail.com> References: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> <3C590584-E4FA-4284-86CF-647435DB6466@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2589593B-989B-41A9-84E5-9EBA10B4F60F@hserus.net> It is quite funny that an incoherent critique of US policy is sought to get fobbed off as an equally incoherent critique on multistakeholderism. Maybe parminder could found a list that does what it says on the list name - dedicated to critiquing US policy - and confine his attempts at propaganda to that? Those that agree with him, and God knows there are a few here and there, could gravitate to it, those that believe in making multistakeholderism work rather than attempt to drop sundry spanners into its works could just continue doing what they already do. --srs (iPad) > On 13-Oct-2014, at 23:58, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > >> On Oct 13, 2014, at 11:09 AM, David Cake wrote: >> >> Seemed to almost entirely be a criticism of the US govts hypocrisy in talking up its commitment to multi-stakeholderism while simultaneously pursuing lobbyist led goals by other means. >> As a criticism of US govt hypocrisy, its fine. As a criticism of multi-stakeholderism, its incoherent. > > I agree with David on both counts. > > BTW of relevance to the article, > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/business/obama-reiterates-his-support-for-net-neutrality.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0 > > Bill > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 14 05:54:08 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:54:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] JNC statement to ITU PP Message-ID: <20141014115408.0ea9d85c@quill> Dear all JNC's Statement to the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union is now available at http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014.pdf Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 14 09:38:15 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:38:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] JNC statement to ITU PP In-Reply-To: <20141014115408.0ea9d85c@quill> References: <20141014115408.0ea9d85c@quill> Message-ID: thanks Norbert On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all > > JNC's Statement to the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference of the > International Telecommunication Union is now available at > http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014.pdf > > Greetings, > Norbert > co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2014< http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2014 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 14 10:14:19 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:44:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] US style Multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <543D2FBB.20609@itforchange.net> On Monday 13 October 2014 11:39 PM, David Cake wrote: > Seemed to almost entirely be a criticism of the US govts hypocrisy in > talking up its commitment to multi-stakeholderism while simultaneously > pursuing lobbyist led goals by other means. > As a criticism of US govt hypocrisy, its fine. Thanks David, that was the primary purpose of the posting. > As a criticism of multi-stakeholderism, its incoherent. If it is just incoherence that is your problem, you may like to read the following rather well argued and supported critique of multistakeholderism (MSism) "State of Davos: The camel's nose in the tents of global governance" http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/state_of_davos_chapter.pdf What is interesting is that it critiques practically every currently practised aspect of MSism in the global IG space, without ever referring to IG. Shows how MSism is not some special state of governance associated with the Internet's oft-claimed 'special nature'. It was not even invented by the IG guys... It was invented by hard neolibs of Davos kind, for obvious reasons. This is a governance model proposed by the 1 % , which IG civil society, for a variety of reasons, has fallen prey to. Equal footing MSism that actually aspires to participate equally in public policy decision making came to the IG space after it begun to get spoken in the WEF, especially in the Global Redesign Initiative of the WEF. I think that it started to make clear claims in the IG space around 2009-10. Till then people were mostly just seeking/ ensuring no 'new' policy development or no 'new' policy institution development. It is post Davos theorisations of the Global Redesign Initiative kind that the brave new claim begun to be made in the IG space that corporates should actually participate in public policy decision making as equals. The recent misadventures of IG MSism towards Davos and WEF were rather an obvious thing waiting to happen. They are the same thing, more or less, with some good spin applied here and there, which would be applied right now since the first - over brash - effort of Davos to take over the global IG space suffered some set back. It was just a tactical mistake. It will be corrected. Powers are with them! Happy reading.. parminder > > I particularly like the way it says we should have open and > transparent negotiation - and then in the next paragraph says we > should exclude Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc. Open, but only to > people they like? Essentially, advocating the same behaviour they just > decried in the US govt. Openness is like free speech -- you are either > for or against it, and if you are only in favour of it for people you > like, you aren't for it. > > And, of course, the author says it is terrible if there are back room, > secret negotiations - but also says lets exclude the largest > commercial organisations from open and transparent negotiations, > meaning non-public efforts would be their only option. Anyone think > that recipe works? > > But hey, look at the solution the author proposes - just change the > entire economy so most commercial organisations are organised as > workers collectives. Anyone else think that should be our focus for > action, just hope we can replace Facebook, Google, etc with workers > collectives? > > Cheers > > David > > On 13 Oct 2014, at 12:31 am, parminder > wrote: > >> A report in the Pirate Party International's magazine on what is >> calls as US style multistakeholderism.. >> >> http://piratetimes.net/democracy-and-hypocrisy-the-us-governments-multi-stakeholder-model/ >> >> >> parminder >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 11:38:31 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:38:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Call for feedback on two important IG issues... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephanie Borg Psaila Date: 14 October 2014 11:25 Subject: Call for feedback on two important IG issues... To: igcbp at diplomacy.edu Dear friends, We would like to invite you to share your thoughts on two very important and current issues in Internet governance - issues which you may have already thought about and discussed with you colleagues or in the community: *#1 Overcoming policy silos: *Across different countries and regions, stakeholders and policymakers often approach the same IG issues from various angles and policy routes. Parallel debates often take place, with the risk of policy incoherence and even turf battles among the forums discussing the same issues. So, how can we overcome policy silos or policy segregation? To arrive at possible solutions, we first need to understand how the policy process works in different countries by taking, as example, three areas: (a) data protection and privacy; (b) cybersecurity and cybercrime; (c) intellectual property rights. With this in mind, *please take part in the survey on policy silos , and contribute to the discussion forum . * *#2. A** on**e-s**top shop:* IG is a highly complex policy space with hundreds of actors addressing more than 50 different policy issues in a wide range of forums. So, to whom do we address our concerns? Which organisations do we get in touch with if we need information about different IG aspects? Where can we learn about the latest developments? A possible solution is the creation of a one-stop shop, or a ‘clearing house’, with the underlying aim of assisting players – especially governments and stakeholders from developing countries – in making better use of existing processes to help shape their own policies on national levels. The design is key: Should it be a new international Internet organisation, a global multistakeholder IG clearing house, a distributed governance system, or...? What functions should it have? *Please share your views on discussion forum .* Your contributions will be help us (a) identify approaches to overcome policy silos, and (b) make concrete proposals towards a clearing house. Needless to say, your contributions will be highly appreciated. The discussion is hosted by the Geneva Internet Platform , in preparation for the upcoming international conference, the Geneva Internet Conference . If you have any questions/comments, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks in advance, Stephanie -- Stephanie Borg Psaila DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu *The latest from Diplo...* *Join our Internet governance community at www.diplointernetgovernance.org ** * To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to igcbp+unsubscribe at diplomacy.edu. -- “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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 12:07:14 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:07:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] US style Multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <543D2FBB.20609@itforchange.net> References: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> <543D2FBB.20609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 13 October 2014 11:39 PM, David Cake wrote: > > Seemed to almost entirely be a criticism of the US govts hypocrisy in > talking up its commitment to multi-stakeholderism while simultaneously > pursuing lobbyist led goals by other means. > As a criticism of US govt hypocrisy, its fine. > > > Thanks David, that was the primary purpose of the posting. > > As a criticism of multi-stakeholderism, its incoherent. > > > If it is just incoherence that is your problem, you may like to read the > following rather well argued and supported critique of multistakeholderism > (MSism) > > "State of Davos: The camel's nose in the tents of global governance" > http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/state_of_davos_chapter.pdf > > What is interesting is that it critiques practically every currently > practised aspect of MSism in the global IG space, without ever referring to > IG. Shows how MSism is not some special state of governance associated with > the Internet's oft-claimed 'special nature'. It was not even invented by the > IG guys... It was invented by hard neolibs of Davos kind, for obvious > reasons. So 40 years of bottom up, consensus based open, transparent policy making was invented in 2009-10? That implies time travel. As usual, the facts don't fit your paradigm. -- 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 Oct 14 12:15:15 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 21:45:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] US style Multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> <543D2FBB.20609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1490f710ee0.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> As long as the right jargon is employed, inconvenient truths just get dismissed or ignored.. Per usual. On 14 October 2014 9:38:18 pm McTim wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM, parminder wrote: > > > > On Monday 13 October 2014 11:39 PM, David Cake wrote: > > > > Seemed to almost entirely be a criticism of the US govts hypocrisy in > > talking up its commitment to multi-stakeholderism while simultaneously > > pursuing lobbyist led goals by other means. > > As a criticism of US govt hypocrisy, its fine. > > > > > > Thanks David, that was the primary purpose of the posting. > > > > As a criticism of multi-stakeholderism, its incoherent. > > > > > > If it is just incoherence that is your problem, you may like to read the > > following rather well argued and supported critique of multistakeholderism > > (MSism) > > > > "State of Davos: The camel's nose in the tents of global governance" > > > http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/state_of_davos_chapter.pdf > > > > What is interesting is that it critiques practically every currently > > practised aspect of MSism in the global IG space, without ever referring to > > IG. Shows how MSism is not some special state of governance associated with > > the Internet's oft-claimed 'special nature'. It was not even invented by the > > IG guys... It was invented by hard neolibs of Davos kind, for obvious > > reasons. > > So 40 years of bottom up, consensus based open, transparent policy > making was invented in 2009-10? > > That implies time travel. > > As usual, the facts don't fit your paradigm. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 12:50:48 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:50:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] JNC statement to ITU PP In-Reply-To: <20141014115408.0ea9d85c@quill> References: <20141014115408.0ea9d85c@quill> Message-ID: hi Norbert thanks for sharing this info 2014-10-14 11:54 GMT+02:00 Norbert Bollow : > Dear all > > JNC's Statement to the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference of the > International Telecommunication Union is now available at > http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014.pdf > > Greetings, > Norbert > co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 15:36:24 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:36:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] US Government Says No Single Entity Or Nation Will Control The Internet | TechCrunch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <08f501cfe7e6$2472ee80$6d58cb80$@gmail.com> (Except us/US… M From: Dave Farber via ip [mailto:ip at listbox.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 11:45 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] US Government Says No Single Entity Or Nation Will Control The Internet | TechCrunch http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/13/us-government-says-no-single-entity-or-nation-will-control-the-internet/ Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 00:06:39 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:06:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] Message-ID: Dear All, I would be grateful if anyone has any information about your country positions within the UN General Assembly today on Agenda Item 16 on ICT for Development. If you have any news, grateful if you could send me a message offline. I have information on the US's position but would like to know how other members of the General Assembly are feeling or issues and points raised. Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From manasa at itforchange.net Wed Oct 15 06:54:03 2014 From: manasa at itforchange.net (Manasa Priya Vasudevan) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:24:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] New issue of RESURGENCE - on global Internet governance issues In-Reply-To: <543E51E2.4060409@itforchange.net> References: <543E51E2.4060409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <543E524B.4090306@itforchange.net> Dear all, Apologies for cross posting! I write to inform you that the latest issue of *Third World Resurgence*, a magazine by the Third World Network (TWN) with focus in the area of *Democratising global Internet governance: Issues and challenges, *is now available on the Third World Network website (www.twn.my ) ! Hard copies are also available and requests for the same may be placed to this id: twnet at po.jaring.my Rgds, Manasa Priya Vasudevan /Research Assistant/ *IT for Change* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 538483 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Oct 15 08:10:55 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:10:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <137596733.12712.1413375055098.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n23> Dear Sala As a regular participant in the WSIS process I'd suggest you to have a look in its archives : there a lots of stories about and around ICT4D, one more enthousiastic than another,, under the auspices and with the blessings of the ITU   Because for these folks, ICT4D has become a storyteklling thematic.   Please, enjoy !   Greetings   Jean-Louis Fullsack       ito alo can     > Message du 15/10/14 06:07 > De : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] > > Dear All, > > I would be grateful if anyone has any information about your country positions within the UN General Assembly today on Agenda Item 16 on ICT for Development. If you have any news, grateful if you could send me a message offline. > > I have information on the US's position but would like to know how other members of the General Assembly are feeling or issues and points raised. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 15 08:18:18 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:48:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] In-Reply-To: <137596733.12712.1413375055098.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n23> References: <137596733.12712.1413375055098.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n23> Message-ID: <543E660A.8050100@itforchange.net> A report on Indian statement at the UN. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Internet-cant-be-managed-as-private-property-India-tells-UN/articleshow/44822618.cms Indian representative said the international management of the internet should be "multilateral, transparent and democratic." "As a global common, cyberspace cannot be managed only as private property. The governance and architecture of internet should reflect its global and democratic nature," he said. (quotation ends) parminder On Wednesday 15 October 2014 05:40 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Dear Sala > > As a regular participant in the WSIS process I'd suggest you to have a > look in its archives : there a lots of stories about and around ICT4D, > one more enthousiastic than another,, under the auspices and with the > blessings of the ITU > > Because for these folks, ICT4D has become a storyteklling thematic. > > Please, enjoy ! > > Greetings > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ito alo can > > > > Message du 15/10/14 06:07 > > De : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > I would be grateful if anyone has any information about your > country positions within the UN General Assembly today on Agenda > Item 16 on ICT for Development. If you have any news, grateful if > you could send me a message offline. > > > > > I have information on the US's position but would like to know how > other members of the General Assembly are feeling or issues and > points raised. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Oct 15 08:34:45 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 18:04:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] In-Reply-To: <543E660A.8050100@itforchange.net> References: <137596733.12712.1413375055098.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n23> <543E660A.8050100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <14913cd96e8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Architecture? How specifically? On 15 October 2014 5:49:05 pm parminder wrote: > A report on Indian statement at the UN. > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Internet-cant-be-managed-as-private-property-India-tells-UN/articleshow/44822618.cms > > > > Indian representative said the international management of the internet > should be "multilateral, transparent and democratic." > > "As a global common, cyberspace cannot be managed only as private > property. The governance and architecture of internet should reflect its > global and democratic nature," he said. > > > > > (quotation ends) > > parminder > > On Wednesday 15 October 2014 05:40 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > > Dear Sala > > > > As a regular participant in the WSIS process I'd suggest you to have a > > look in its archives : there a lots of stories about and around ICT4D, > > one more enthousiastic than another,, under the auspices and with the > > blessings of the ITU > > > > Because for these folks, ICT4D has become a storyteklling thematic. > > > > Please, enjoy ! > > > > Greetings > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > ito alo can > > > > > > > Message du 15/10/14 06:07 > > > De : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > > > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > > Copie à : > > > Objet : [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > I would be grateful if anyone has any information about your > > country positions within the UN General Assembly today on Agenda > > Item 16 on ICT for Development. If you have any news, grateful if > > you could send me a message offline. > > > > > > > > I have information on the US's position but would like to know how > > other members of the General Assembly are feeling or issues and > > points raised. > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > Sala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From briangutterman at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 09:30:16 2014 From: briangutterman at gmail.com (Brian Gutterman) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:30:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] In-Reply-To: <14913cd96e8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <137596733.12712.1413375055098.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n23> <543E660A.8050100@itforchange.net> <14913cd96e8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: All, The 2nd Committee sessions are archived online at the UN Web TV channel - the ICT4D session is here: http://webtv.un.org/watch/second-committee-8th-meeting-69th-general-assembly/3838879062001 Hope this is useful to some, Best Brian On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Architecture? How specifically? > > On 15 October 2014 5:49:05 pm parminder wrote: > >> A report on Indian statement at the UN. >> >> >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Internet-cant-be-managed-as-private-property-India-tells-UN/articleshow/44822618.cms >> >> >> >> Indian representative said the international management of the internet >> should be "multilateral, transparent and democratic." >> >> "As a global common, cyberspace cannot be managed only as private >> property. The governance and architecture of internet should reflect its >> global and democratic nature," he said. >> >> >> >> >> >> (quotation ends) >> >> parminder >> >> On Wednesday 15 October 2014 05:40 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> >> Dear Sala >> >> As a regular participant in the WSIS process I'd suggest you to have a >> look in its archives : there a lots of stories about and around ICT4D, one >> more enthousiastic than another,, under the auspices and with the blessings >> of the ITU >> >> >> >> Because for these folks, ICT4D has become a storyteklling thematic. >> >> >> >> Please, enjoy ! >> >> >> >> Greetings >> >> >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ito alo can >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 15/10/14 06:07 >> > De : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> >> >> > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] >> > >> > >> Dear All, >> > >> > >> I would be grateful if anyone has any information about your country >> positions within the UN General Assembly today on Agenda Item 16 on ICT for >> Development. If you have any news, grateful if you could send me a message >> offline. >> > >> > >> I have information on the US's position but would like to know how other >> members of the General Assembly are feeling or issues and points raised. >> > >> >> > >> Kind Regards, >> > Sala >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Mr. Brian Gutterman Phone: (504) 236-2932 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Wed Oct 15 14:25:18 2014 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 18:25:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20141015182518.Horde.xFZR6Z9hDt3YBrrdFk_KCw7@www.ciencitec.com> Dear All Previous successes greetings and wish everyone, my question is why my country Peru, also not involved ?, I take to report that the Chapter of ISOC, is inactive, despite alleging that this organization has fallen into the hands of a fascineroso, not representing civil society, has not done anything so far, where is democracy and participation ?, makes Governance in these and other issues of discrimination by unscrupulous individuals who make the Internet a juicy business? . I hope your answers Best regards Jose F. Callo Romero Founder of ISOC-PERU Member of internautaperu.org Deirdre Williams escribió: > A very good choice. > Congratulations everyone. > Deirdre > > On 11 October 2014 17:51, Fatima Cambronero > wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Thanks for this information. >> I also want to thank you all for continuing to support me in this role of >> MAG member as civil society representative. >> I will do my best to represent our interests. >> Congratulations to all the colleagues selected! >> >> Best Regards, >> Fatima >> >> >> 2014-10-10 22:17 GMT-03:00 Suresh Ramasubramanian : >> >> This is among the best slates of mag nominations I have seen in the recent >>> past. Congratulations to all concerned and thanks to the nomcom. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 11-Oct-2014, at 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> >>> The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is >>> pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil >>> society representation on MAG 2015. >>> >>> As you know, CSCG is a “coalition of coalitions” of the major civil >>> society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated >>> areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a >>> co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making >>> civil society appointments to outside bodies. >>> >>> *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* >>> >>> After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations >>> within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their >>> individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for >>> endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names >>> short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. >>> >>> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups >>> working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively >>> on behalf of public interest concerns. >>> >>> 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS >>> networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where >>> appropriate) on MAG discussions. >>> >>> 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >>> >>> 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and >>> constructively in the MAG deliberations. >>> >>> >>> >>> In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the >>> advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society >>> representatives were ending their terms this year – an unusually high >>> number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new >>> members as outlined below. >>> >>> We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil >>> society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full >>> application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG >>> members. >>> >>> *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) >>> >>> *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) >>> >>> *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) >>> >>> *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) >>> >>> *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) >>> >>> *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) >>> >>> *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). >>> >>> *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). >>> >>> *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) >>> >>> *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) >>> >>> We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms >>> have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose >>> term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima >>> to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the >>> continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the >>> continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only >>> remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In >>> doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are >>> civil society representatives. >>> >>> In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of >>> very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in >>> its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite >>> their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, >>> should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional >>> representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very >>> pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society >>> people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. >>> >>> >>> >>> We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to >>> discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF >>> Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we >>> thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise >>> and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to >>> represent civil society. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sincerely >>> >>> >>> >>> *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* >>> >>> Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative >>> >>> Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative >>> >>> Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative >>> >>> Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive >>> Communications representative >>> >>> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >>> >>> Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating >>> Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria >>> developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana >>> (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination >>> Group – brief descriptions* >>> >>> · Association for Progressive Communications, an international >>> membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to >>> empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy >>> and affordable access to a free and open internet. >>> >>> · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from >>> across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual >>> and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared >>> civil society interests in Internet governance. >>> >>> · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 >>> members in 120 countries >>> >>> · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants >>> from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage >>> effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s >>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over >>> 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. >>> >>> · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 >>> organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically >>> address emerging internet governance issues. >>> >>> · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with >>> specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. >>> >>> · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of >>> more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop >>> Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development >>> process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN >>> policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and >>> cultural interests. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Fatima Cambronero* >> Abogada-Argentina >> >> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 >> Twitter: @facambronero >> Skype: fatima.cambronero >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 ekenyanito at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 15:03:31 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:03:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Polite Reminder: Invitation Wed 13:15 PDT cross-community discussion on Human Rights in ICANN Message-ID: <543EC503.3040603@gmail.com> Today Wednesday, from 13:14 to 14:45 PDT there will be an open and (hopefully) cross-constituency discussion in Room Encino (flyer attached) to talk about some aspects of ICANN policies related to human rights and to think about the next steps of how to operationalize this discussion on a more sustainable way. Possibile key questions for discussion: 1. To what extent is ICANN’s Applicant Guidebook in compliance with the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? 2. To what extent are ICANN’s policies and procedures in compliance with standards of non-discrimination? 3. To what extent are ICANN’s policies and procedures in compliance with the right to privacy and personal data protection? 4. What are the respective roles and responsibilities of ICANN and of governments for the protection of human rights online? 5. What is needed to enhance accountability for human rights protection within ICANN? Incase of any questions please feel free to reach out to Niels ten Oever, Head of Digital Article 19. -- Best Regards, ​​ *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DGI_2014_12E Report ICANN and Human Rights updated 5 Oct 2014.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 543700 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20141013 community discussion human rights ICANN51 v2.3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 41440 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Oct 15 16:01:14 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 07:01:14 +1100 Subject: [governance] Platform competition Message-ID: <601FE8B306254B7584758A8B08FFDD81@Toshiba> This is a highly interesting article about the work of Nobel Prize winning economist Jean Tirole and how the concept of platform competition relates to internet markets. It explains how Google and Facebook can make enormous profits and dominate markets while offering their products free of charge. Similar issues exist in some other industries, but this article concentrates on Internet. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6968423/jean-tirole-platform-competition To quote “And an important question for the world going forward is to how to think about regulating that kind of market. Since Google doesn't charge its mass customer base anything at all, you're never going to find evidence of monopoly power in price hikes.” As Mark Rotenberg comments, “The key insight is not no regulation but different regulation. This is also why competition law and privacy law need to be updated not ignored.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 16:44:03 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:44:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] In-Reply-To: References: <137596733.12712.1413375055098.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n23> <543E660A.8050100@itforchange.net> <14913cd96e8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Thanks Brian. When I had checked the archives yesterday, it was'nt available yet but have since read the report by UNCTAD but the video is way better. Some very useful discussions by the General Assembly. I managed to read the report submitted here: http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/ and relying on Press Releases by some governments. With every best wish, Sala On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Brian Gutterman wrote: > All, > > The 2nd Committee sessions are archived online at the UN Web TV channel - > the ICT4D session is here: > > > http://webtv.un.org/watch/second-committee-8th-meeting-69th-general-assembly/3838879062001 > > Hope this is useful to some, > > Best > Brian > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> Architecture? How specifically? >> >> On 15 October 2014 5:49:05 pm parminder >> wrote: >> >>> A report on Indian statement at the UN. >>> >>> >>> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Internet-cant-be-managed-as-private-property-India-tells-UN/articleshow/44822618.cms >>> >>> >>> >>> Indian representative said the international management of the internet >>> should be "multilateral, transparent and democratic." >>> >>> "As a global common, cyberspace cannot be managed only as private >>> property. The governance and architecture of internet should reflect its >>> global and democratic nature," he said. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> (quotation ends) >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Wednesday 15 October 2014 05:40 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sala >>> >>> As a regular participant in the WSIS process I'd suggest you to have a >>> look in its archives : there a lots of stories about and around ICT4D, one >>> more enthousiastic than another,, under the auspices and with the blessings >>> of the ITU >>> >>> >>> >>> Because for these folks, ICT4D has become a storyteklling thematic. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please, enjoy ! >>> >>> >>> >>> Greetings >>> >>> >>> >>> Jean-Louis Fullsack >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ito alo can >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Message du 15/10/14 06:07 >>> > De : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>> >>> >>> > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >>> >>> > Copie à : >>> > Objet : [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, >>> > >>> > >>> I would be grateful if anyone has any information about your country >>> positions within the UN General Assembly today on Agenda Item 16 on ICT for >>> Development. If you have any news, grateful if you could send me a message >>> offline. >>> > >>> > >>> I have information on the US's position but would like to know how other >>> members of the General Assembly are feeling or issues and points raised. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Kind Regards, >>> > Sala >>> > >>> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Mr. Brian Gutterman > Phone: (504) 236-2932 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Wed Oct 15 16:53:28 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 07:53:28 +1100 Subject: [governance] Platform competition In-Reply-To: <601FE8B306254B7584758A8B08FFDD81@Toshiba> References: <601FE8B306254B7584758A8B08FFDD81@Toshiba> Message-ID: Just a bit more on this reading on - Wikipedia provides a good article and other examples of two-sided markets here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market which helps to clarify the issues. Another quote One takeaway from Tirole's work on regulation in general is that to a greater extent than people appreciate, policy problems sometimes exist because the questions are genuinely difficult rather than because policymakers are corrupt or feckless. And it seems that one reason why the questions are genuinely difficult is that regulatory regimes were written in an era where such problems did not really exist. We don’t have laws which are applicable. And often we don’t have legislators who understand the nature of the problems. (and, sure, we don’t have the will to introduce new laws or amend them either). Ian From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 7:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Platform competition This is a highly interesting article about the work of Nobel Prize winning economist Jean Tirole and how the concept of platform competition relates to internet markets. It explains how Google and Facebook can make enormous profits and dominate markets while offering their products free of charge. Similar issues exist in some other industries, but this article concentrates on Internet. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6968423/jean-tirole-platform-competition To quote “And an important question for the world going forward is to how to think about regulating that kind of market. Since Google doesn't charge its mass customer base anything at all, you're never going to find evidence of monopoly power in price hikes.” As Mark Rotenberg comments, “The key insight is not no regulation but different regulation. This is also why competition law and privacy law need to be updated not ignored.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 17:37:32 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:37:32 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Platform competition In-Reply-To: References: <601FE8B306254B7584758A8B08FFDD81@Toshiba> Message-ID: Oh I see... So because it takes time for the fullness of a new reality to emerge, and even more time for the not-so-quickly-evolving human mind to grasp that new reality, the naysayers (or status-quoers) would tell us: "you guys just can't get it!" (the almighty technology, that is)... so "forget it!... you're just messing things up."... Or "you're being 'ringard'! (all the contrary of 'avant-gardist'... being 'arriere-gardist' in other words), etc. etc. True, if it ain't broke don't fix it... Question is, who gets to say it's broke or it ain't? Because all reality is human reality, or it isn't. So goes authority. ;) Thanks, Ian for sharing. Hasta la vista, Mawaki On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Just a bit more on this reading on - > > Wikipedia provides a good article and other examples of two-sided markets > here > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market > > which helps to clarify the issues. > > Another quote > > One takeaway from Tirole's work on regulation in general is that to a > greater extent than people appreciate, policy problems sometimes exist > because *the questions are genuinely difficult* rather than because > policymakers are corrupt or feckless. > > > And it seems that one reason why the questions are genuinely difficult > is that regulatory regimes were written in an era where such problems did > not really exist. We don't have laws which are applicable. And often we > don't have legislators who understand the nature of the problems. (and, > sure, we don't have the will to introduce new laws or amend them either). > > Ian > > > > > *From:* Ian Peter > *Sent:* Thursday, October 16, 2014 7:01 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [governance] Platform competition > > This is a highly interesting article about the work of Nobel Prize > winning economist Jean Tirole and how the concept of platform competition > relates to internet markets. It explains how Google and Facebook can make > enormous profits and dominate markets while offering their products free of > charge. Similar issues exist in some other industries, but this article > concentrates on Internet. > > > http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6968423/jean-tirole-platform-competition > > To quote "And an important question for the world going forward is to how > to think about regulating that kind of market. Since Google doesn't charge > its mass customer base *anything at all*, you're never going to find > evidence of monopoly power in price hikes." > > > As Mark Rotenberg comments, "The key insight is not no regulation but > different regulation. This is also why competition law and privacy law need > to be updated not ignored." > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 17:41:45 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:41:45 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Platform competition In-Reply-To: References: <601FE8B306254B7584758A8B08FFDD81@Toshiba> Message-ID: <02f301cfe8c0$d3338e90$799aabb0$@gmail.com> And of course we have platforms (corporate monopolists) who use their wealth and power to tip the scales (of regulation/non-regulation) in their own favour. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:53 PM To: Ian Peter; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Platform competition Just a bit more on this reading on - Wikipedia provides a good article and other examples of two-sided markets here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market which helps to clarify the issues. Another quote One takeaway from Tirole's work on regulation in general is that to a greater extent than people appreciate, policy problems sometimes exist because the questions are genuinely difficult rather than because policymakers are corrupt or feckless. And it seems that one reason why the questions are genuinely difficult is that regulatory regimes were written in an era where such problems did not really exist. We don’t have laws which are applicable. And often we don’t have legislators who understand the nature of the problems. (and, sure, we don’t have the will to introduce new laws or amend them either). Ian From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 7:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Platform competition This is a highly interesting article about the work of Nobel Prize winning economist Jean Tirole and how the concept of platform competition relates to internet markets. It explains how Google and Facebook can make enormous profits and dominate markets while offering their products free of charge. Similar issues exist in some other industries, but this article concentrates on Internet. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6968423/jean-tirole-platform-competition To quote “And an important question for the world going forward is to how to think about regulating that kind of market. Since Google doesn't charge its mass customer base anything at all, you're never going to find evidence of monopoly power in price hikes.” As Mark Rotenberg comments, “The key insight is not no regulation but different regulation. This is also why competition law and privacy law need to be updated not ignored.” _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Oct 16 09:53:21 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:53:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Root zone inviolability discussion Message-ID: Hi everyone.... Diplo and the Geneva Internet Platform (GIP) are discussing IG issues in the build-up to the Geneva Internet Conference (GIC). Whether or not you are planning to follow the conference itself, the discussions offer non-political and constructive exchange of ideas on important topics. Your input is needed and appreciated: Control over the Internet root zone has been one of the most controversial issues in the IG debate. As the core of the domain name system (Internet address book), it ensures the functional integrity of the Internet. We would like to share with you a policy brief by Dr Jovan Kurbalija „There is a practical solution for the inviolability of the Internet root zone “ which proposes possible solutions: - The Internet root zone should be inviolable at any time, wherever it may be located. - No state should have the jurisdiction to prescribe, adjudicate, or enforce policy over the Internet root zone. - The Internet root zone may only be modified through existing procedures or new ones that might be introduced in September 2015. - The inviolability of the Internet root zone should be based on customary law that recognises the consistent practice of no unilateral interference by the US authorities in the content of the Internet root zone. Please consult the document for further legal justification and more background. The policy brief sets the stage for the *Geneva Internet Conference* organised within the *Geneva Internet Platform* . For your calendar and further discussion on this topic: - 28 October (*Bern and online*) – Measurement and data in IG. What kind of numbers are we talking about? - 6 November (*Geneva*) – Jurisdiction in the Internet era - *Online* discussions leading to the Geneva Internet Conference on How to overcome IG policy silos on national and global levels? and Whom do I call if I want to raise my IG concern? I look forward to seeing you in our discussions. If you have any questions about the conference, or are interested in remote participation in the conference, please let me know. 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 karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Fri Oct 17 08:52:32 2014 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:52:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] How to check the health of an internet connection? Message-ID: <20141017145232.41237eci4jyg49hs@mail1.itu.ch> Dear all, I wonder if on that day, there is a process and / or tools to verify the protocols and services blocked by operators and ISPs in one place, this by a simple user or why not an IT? Thank you. Ing. ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Karim, Comoros, Tél : (+269) 334 37 06 - ID Skype : attoukarim -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 17 16:24:18 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:24:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] Cyber-Espionage and Trade Agreements: An Ill-Fitting and Dangerous Combination Message-ID: <54417AF2.4040805@eff.org> Yesterday's leak of a May 2014 draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement revealed the addition of new text criminalizing the misuse of trade secrets through "computer systems", as mentioned in our previous post about the leak. This is a significant revelation, because we also know that trade secrets are planned for inclusion in the EU-US free trade agreement , TTIP (the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). The revelation of the proposed text in the TPP provides a good indication that the same kind of language will likely also appear in TTIP. Frighteningly, this text contains no protections to safeguard the public interest. https://eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/cyber-espionage-and-trade-agreements-ill-fitting-and-dangerous-combination -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 17 16:45:51 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:45:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] Cyber-Espionage and Trade Agreements: An Ill-Fitting and Dangerous Combination In-Reply-To: <54417AF2.4040805@eff.org> References: <54417AF2.4040805@eff.org> Message-ID: <2F52F233-F3BE-499A-A66E-4F7C761F98A4@gmail.com> Thanks Jeremy. I will analyze this from a Pacific perspective and raise it with appropriate institutions in the Pacific. Very useful information, thank you. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 18, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Yesterday's leak of a May 2014 draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement revealed the addition of new text criminalizing the misuse of trade secrets through "computer systems", as mentioned in our previous post about the leak. This is a significant revelation, because we also know that trade secrets are planned for inclusion in the EU-US free trade agreement, TTIP (the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). The revelation of the proposed text in the TPP provides a good indication that the same kind of language will likely also appear in TTIP. Frighteningly, this text contains no protections to safeguard the public interest. > > https://eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/cyber-espionage-and-trade-agreements-ill-fitting-and-dangerous-combination > > -- > 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 pwilson at apnic.net Fri Oct 17 17:24:38 2014 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 07:24:38 +1000 Subject: [governance] Cyber-Espionage and Trade Agreements: An Ill-Fitting and Dangerous Combination In-Reply-To: <54417AF2.4040805@eff.org> References: <54417AF2.4040805@eff.org> Message-ID: <4B3C2EBF-3570-4A78-9C9B-20F80286DD42@apnic.net> Thanks Jeremy. The link to your earlier post is password protected, but I gather it should be: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/latest-tpp-leak-shows-us-still-pushing-terrible-drm-and-copyright-term-proposals On 18 Oct 2014, at 6:24 am, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Yesterday's leak of a May 2014 draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement revealed the addition of new text criminalizing the misuse of trade secrets through "computer systems", as mentioned in our previous post about the leak. This is a significant revelation, because we also know that trade secrets are planned for inclusion in the EU-US free trade agreement, TTIP (the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). The revelation of the proposed text in the TPP provides a good indication that the same kind of language will likely also appear in TTIP. Frighteningly, this text contains no protections to safeguard the public interest. > > https://eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/cyber-espionage-and-trade-agreements-ill-fitting-and-dangerous-combination > > -- > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 17 20:26:56 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 19:26:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] How to check the health of an internet connection? In-Reply-To: <20141017145232.41237eci4jyg49hs@mail1.itu.ch> References: <20141017145232.41237eci4jyg49hs@mail1.itu.ch> Message-ID: http://www.measurementlab.net/tools/ndt On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:52 AM, wrote: > Dear all, > > I wonder if on that day, there is a process and / or tools to verify the > protocols and services blocked by operators and ISPs in one place, this by a > simple user or why not an IT? > > Thank you. > > Ing. ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Karim, > Comoros, Tél : (+269) 334 37 06 - ID Skype : attoukarim > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 18 02:36:08 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Review Message-ID: Dear All, I think that we should start thinking about the review of the WSIS +10 that is scheduled for 2015 and prepare putting together formal submissions as an IGC on the matter. It will also be interesting to see who conducts/facilitates the Review whether this will be the CSTD or otherwise. The discussions at the UN General Assembly in New York this week was interesting. SPaCS has summarised the gist of the discussions. Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SPaCS Advisory ICT for Development _UN General Assembly Second Committee.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 376684 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 shahzad at bytesforall.pk Sat Oct 18 10:58:14 2014 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:58:14 +0500 Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54428006.3050509@bytesforall.pk> Dear Sala, I think linked to this discussion also is the appointment of new MAG. When will we hear a decision? Best wishes and regards Shahzad -- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981 PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F On 10/18/14 11:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > I think that we should start thinking about the review of the WSIS +10 that > is scheduled for 2015 and prepare putting together formal submissions as an > IGC on the matter. It will also be interesting to see who > conducts/facilitates the Review whether this will be the CSTD or otherwise. > > The discussions at the UN General Assembly in New York this week was > interesting. SPaCS has summarised the gist of the discussions. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat Oct 18 11:26:16 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:26:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1369516222.9229.1413645976465.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n08> Thanks to you, Sala, for this valuable and rich information on the "progress made" in the WSIS Action Plan and Agenda.   i guess all the UN people are satisfied, whereas some/most countries will have a rather prudent position.   But, let's read all this stuff ; perhaps it entails some surprises :-))   More seriously, I do hope there are some people from CS WSIS orgs to prepare a more serious paper on the outcome of the long and one-sided (mostly boring, thanks to the ITU),  BTW, Who will replace "our" Bill Mc Iver and Sally Burch who chaired successfully (and with their entire commitment) our debates and plenaries during both phases of the WSIS ? And Where is CONGO ???   Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack       > Message du 18/10/14 08:43 > De : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] WSIS+10 Review > > Dear All, > > I think that we should start thinking about the review of the WSIS +10 that is scheduled for 2015 and prepare putting together formal submissions as an IGC on the matter. It will also be interesting to see who conducts/facilitates the Review whether this will be the CSTD or otherwise. > > The discussions at the UN General Assembly in New York this week was interesting. SPaCS has summarised the gist of the discussions. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > [ SPaCS Advisory ICT for Development _UN General Assembly Second Committee.pdf (506.8 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Oct 20 08:05:42 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:05:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wonderfull, thanks Sala, very importtant document 2014-10-18 8:36 GMT+02:00 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>: > Dear All, > > I think that we should start thinking about the review of the WSIS +10 > that is scheduled for 2015 and prepare putting together formal submissions > as an IGC on the matter. It will also be interesting to see who > conducts/facilitates the Review whether this will be the CSTD or otherwise. > > The discussions at the UN General Assembly in New York this week was > interesting. SPaCS has summarised the gist of the discussions. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 21 06:46:44 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:16:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes there are many very important global Internet policy issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important Internet policy issues at the global level or some other democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows those who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly the US based economic and political establishment, to carry on consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly oppose it. To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global market models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand of all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the main 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that issue by declaring that such things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework, or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must answer these questions. The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first committee’s work is much less participative (of other stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on the area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part of a process towards development of global principles and agreements and not a as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil society? Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (seefor instance, just the day before's news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to regulate global IP TV transmissions). Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of the economically and politically powerful... parminder On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Dear colleagues > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to > come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced > the open letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot > process itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and > harder task was to develop positions on some of the most important > substantive issues before the conference. The output of this second > phase of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available for > endorsement for the next 24 hours at: > > http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes > > The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals > on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the > ITU's restrictions on document access and because many Member States > submitted their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our > drafting process has taken us hard up against the start of the > Plenipot itself. > > It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we > are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however > someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that > prevents them from signing on, they should email me personally in the > next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will > consult the other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to > accept this edit. > > Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not > presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf > of civil society in general but only on behalf of the specific > organisations endorsing. > > If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your > logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org > ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) > tomorrow, 21 Oct. > > Best wishes > Anne > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > * > * > *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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 22 00:06:25 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:36:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that > different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding > different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. > I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view > in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and > valuable. > > In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms > of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate > reading of its content: > > - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets > is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain > individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where > necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service and > promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations that > have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net neutrality > regulation at national and regional (EU) level. > > - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take > responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the > "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global > governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for the > ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and collaboration > among UN agencies (including the ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and > refer several times to what we think are the ITU's critical roles in > addressing the huge challenges ahead. > > That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was > poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by > Jeanette. > > I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can > continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find > the common ground between differing positions. Dear Anne Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage on this discussion. But my present email will only make one point, about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which your email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that manner, but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political criticism in these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction and submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the world they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil society space, as in the conventional political space. However, for instance in India, which has a rather high level of professional in traditional political space, at least at the national level, political personalities are able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their political positions and counter positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil or any such thing. I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this because many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from a core political civil society background, and so I an really not talking about you.) I also say it because I and people that I work with feel that the present position that is being proposed on the BestBits platform a major political statement that we find extremely problematic and something that sets a solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and social justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest it, with all means at our disposal. I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above email. best regards parminder > > Best > Anne > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill > wrote: > > I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his > comments. > Best, > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org > ]*On Behalf Of > *parminder > *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > ; IRP > *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 > hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in > detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. > It says yes there are many very important global Internet > policy issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them > up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. This > becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political > governance free world, the kind one nowadays read about > frequently in the documents of the World Economic Forum (read > for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). > > I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some > important Internet policy issues at the global level or some > other democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not > tenable that they be just left hanging out there, which only > allows those who have the greatest default power on the > Internet, mostly the US based economic and political > establishment, to carry on consolidating their power. This > statement for me is simply an expression of support for the > Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly oppose it. > > To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); > > Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from > developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies > unregulated global market models for global Internet > inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand > of all developing countries and all progressive civil society > at the WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was > one of the main 'development issues'. This statement seems to > close that issue by declaring that such things be best left to > free markets, with no regulatory framework, or even a > normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear > how even working on the interconnection issue, an express > mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the > ITU. It appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in > 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In the > circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement > should be bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. > > Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work > towards a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken > the world post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with > Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really > changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five > eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the > conduct of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or > have we simply given up and are ready to allow the powerful to > do what they may? Alternatively, is there any other solution > being thought of? Civil society must answer these questions. > > The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the > UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. > That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first > committee’s work is much less participative (of other > stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale > here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see > when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, > but right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the > first committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards > a cyber security treaty will require the expertise of ITU > which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. > Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance > bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and > unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather > than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. > > The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber > security treaty because there is no consensus on basic > concepts and principles in the area.... Is there a greater > consensus on the area of climate change, and so many other > areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the > area of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and > principles emerge as a part of a process towards development > of global principles and agreements and not a as a pre > condition of them. This is universally known. One can > understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why > civil society? > > Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet > power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell > you where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my > view will simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... > > Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal > of all Internet policy related agenda from global governance > stage is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from > the global stage, the dominant political and economic forces > get a free reign, and the little policy that needs to be made > is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the > Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (seefor instance, just the > day before's news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on > how TPP seeks to regulate global IP TV transmissions). > > Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule > of the economically and politically powerful... > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF >> to try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU >> Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and >> participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of >> you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to >> develop positions on some of the most important substantive >> issues before the conference. The output of this second phase >> of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available >> for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: >> >> http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes >> >> The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference >> proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, >> both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and >> because many Member States submitted their proposals quite >> late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has taken >> us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. >> >> It is now very urgent to get this text in front of >> delegations, so we are opening it for endorsements rather >> than comment. If however someone has a red flag, "absolutely >> can't live with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, >> they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to >> propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult >> the other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether >> to accept this edit. >> >> Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not >> presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or >> on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of >> the specific organisations endorsing. >> >> If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send >> your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org >> ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 >> EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct. >> >> Best wishes >> Anne >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> CEO >> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >> @afjellema >> * >> * >> *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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org > > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > * > * > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org > | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 22 00:08:33 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:38:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54472DC1.9020909@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that > different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding > different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. > I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view > in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and > valuable. > > In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms > of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate > reading of its content: > > - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets > is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain > individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where > necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service and > promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations that > have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net neutrality > regulation at national and regional (EU) level. No rational is offered why such work should be stopped at national and regional level, when almost in all major sectors, climate change, health, education, trade, IP and so on, we have global norms, principles and even treaties... If anything, the Internet is perhaps simply more 'inherently' global than these sectoral issues. Leaving it to national level simply allows the US to enforce its norms and law on the global Internet, leaving the developing countries on a take it or leave it position, and the regional aspect allows plurilateral bodies of the rich OECD, EU, CoE and others controlled by the rich, like the Trans Pacific Partnership, to add a bit of their governance priorities to the global Internet, leaving the rest of the world high and dry. In my understanding, it is this 'rest of the world' whose interests we should be representing most. Therefore I really did not get the rational of the above statement - why also not do some global governance of the Internet, in addition to the required national and regional one (Do ask a Kenya or Philippines what leverage they really have today on the global Internet to which they are subject relentlessly. What basis exists for excepting developing countries to simply accept the status quo -- even more unthinkable being that civil society, in effect, proposes that they simply accept the status quo ) . > > - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take > responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the > "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global > governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for the > ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and collaboration > among UN agencies (including the ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and > refer several times to what we think are the ITU's critical roles in > addressing the huge challenges ahead. Which are these mechanisms of coordination... And specifically, where would discussions and resolutions on issues like net neutrality frameworks (remember that the cross border aspect of NN was identified as a key global IG issue by a Council of Europe expert group), generally regulatory principles for IP based communication, or even basic discussions of the nature of personal data in the emerging economy (resource versus right) .... If you want to find a big series of Internet related issues that *have no current home* at any globally democratic forum, simply pick up the agenda over the last several years of the OECD's Committee on Information, computers and communication policy (CICCP) and you will be astonished by the number of Internet specific policy issues. Where should they be resolved. And an appropriate resolution of these issues underlie the very basic paradigm of how the emerging Internet mediated society will be (1) structured, and (2) governance. You say "I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges". Please let me know who do you propose takes responsibility for all the very impotant issues listed above - I mean, (2) at the global level, (2) in a democratic way. It is this long term structural impact of your proposal that is what I find extremely dangerous. BTW, as I mentioned above, so much of 'global' Internet issues get taken up today by the OECD's CICCP.... You proposal call for making ITU CWG-PP multistakeholder. Interesting, and I have asked this question often, I have never seen the civil society groups involved with OECD's CICCP work - which included a lot of those who have signed on this present ITU related statement - seek making the CICCP multistakeholder.... Would this not count as hypocrisy. I cannot understand why and how the agenda of this civil society group - proposing the present statement- is almost completely aligned with what the status quo forces on the Internet want from the ITU PP or do not want.... How can we simply have no agenda to do something about say cyber security that the world, especially post Snowden, is so worried about, and just have one agenda, ITU, step back, dont do anything... That is what this statement is really about, a little ornamental language here or there not withstanding. parminder > > That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was > poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by > Jeanette. > > I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can > continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find > the common ground between differing positions. > > Best > Anne > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill > wrote: > > I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his > comments. > Best, > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org > ]*On Behalf Of > *parminder > *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > ; IRP > *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 > hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in > detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. > It says yes there are many very important global Internet > policy issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them > up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. This > becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political > governance free world, the kind one nowadays read about > frequently in the documents of the World Economic Forum (read > for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). > > I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some > important Internet policy issues at the global level or some > other democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not > tenable that they be just left hanging out there, which only > allows those who have the greatest default power on the > Internet, mostly the US based economic and political > establishment, to carry on consolidating their power. This > statement for me is simply an expression of support for the > Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly oppose it. > > To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); > > Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from > developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies > unregulated global market models for global Internet > inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand > of all developing countries and all progressive civil society > at the WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was > one of the main 'development issues'. This statement seems to > close that issue by declaring that such things be best left to > free markets, with no regulatory framework, or even a > normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear > how even working on the interconnection issue, an express > mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the > ITU. It appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in > 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In the > circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement > should be bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. > > Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work > towards a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken > the world post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with > Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really > changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five > eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the > conduct of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or > have we simply given up and are ready to allow the powerful to > do what they may? Alternatively, is there any other solution > being thought of? Civil society must answer these questions. > > The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the > UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. > That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first > committee’s work is much less participative (of other > stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale > here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see > when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, > but right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the > first committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards > a cyber security treaty will require the expertise of ITU > which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. > Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance > bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and > unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather > than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. > > The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber > security treaty because there is no consensus on basic > concepts and principles in the area.... Is there a greater > consensus on the area of climate change, and so many other > areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the > area of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and > principles emerge as a part of a process towards development > of global principles and agreements and not a as a pre > condition of them. This is universally known. One can > understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why > civil society? > > Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet > power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell > you where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my > view will simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... > > Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal > of all Internet policy related agenda from global governance > stage is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from > the global stage, the dominant political and economic forces > get a free reign, and the little policy that needs to be made > is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the > Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (seefor instance, just the > day before's news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on > how TPP seeks to regulate global IP TV transmissions). > > Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule > of the economically and politically powerful... > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF >> to try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU >> Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and >> participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of >> you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to >> develop positions on some of the most important substantive >> issues before the conference. The output of this second phase >> of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available >> for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: >> >> http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes >> >> The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference >> proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, >> both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and >> because many Member States submitted their proposals quite >> late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has taken >> us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. >> >> It is now very urgent to get this text in front of >> delegations, so we are opening it for endorsements rather >> than comment. If however someone has a red flag, "absolutely >> can't live with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, >> they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to >> propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult >> the other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether >> to accept this edit. >> >> Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not >> presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or >> on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of >> the specific organisations endorsing. >> >> If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send >> your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org >> ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 >> EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct. >> >> Best wishes >> Anne >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> CEO >> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >> @afjellema >> * >> * >> *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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org > > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > * > * > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org > | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 09:47:03 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:47:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> Further to Parminder's comments below. I recently published a blogpost (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic model of "governance by and for the people" is in direct conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of "governance by and for stakeholders". I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in such a way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a value in simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation that often masks fundamental positions and values. I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue more broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a democratic approach to governance including in areas as central to our experience, well-being and future as the Internet and those who would give this governance over to decision making by those with specific "interests/stakes" in the outcome (and where the broad public interest if represented at all would be only one among many such competing "stakes") is a fundamental one. It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of "civil society" and others opting for a position that does not support democracy and democratic governance however and in what manner that might be achieved. M From: IRP [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM To: Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable. In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate reading of its content: - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service and promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) level. - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges ahead. That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by Jeanette. I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find the common ground between differing positions. Dear Anne Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage on this discussion. But my present email will only make one point, about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which your email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that manner, but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political criticism in these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction and submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the world they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil society space, as in the conventional political space. However, for instance in India, which has a rather high level of professional in traditional political space, at least at the national level, political personalities are able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their political positions and counter positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil or any such thing. I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this because many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from a core political civil society background, and so I an really not talking about you.) I also say it because I and people that I work with feel that the present position that is being proposed on the BestBits platform a major political statement that we find extremely problematic and something that sets a solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and social justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest it, with all means at our disposal. I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above email. best regards parminder Best Anne On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill wrote: I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his comments. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of parminder Sent: mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org; IRP Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes there are many very important global Internet policy issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important Internet policy issues at the global level or some other democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows those who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly the US based economic and political establishment, to carry on consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly oppose it. To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global market models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand of all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the main 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that issue by declaring that such things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework, or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must answer these questions. The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first committee's work is much less participative (of other stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on the area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part of a process towards development of global principles and agreements and not a as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil society? Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to regulate global IP TV transmissions). Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of the economically and politically powerful... parminder On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: Dear colleagues As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to develop positions on some of the most important substantive issues before the conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and because many Member States submitted their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept this edit. Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of the specific organisations endorsing. If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct. Best wishes Anne -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema 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 _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum at justnetcoalition.org http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Oct 22 13:16:16 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:16:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Internet Governance On The Move Message-ID: This has started. Due to tech difficulties, the webcast was a little delayed. I am also relaying the webex video over http://bit.ly/isoctv joly posted: "Today Wednesday October 22 2014 the Internet Society UK England Chapter (ISOC-E) in association with International Institute of Communications UK Chapter (IIC UK) and the London School of Economics Media Policy Project present Internet Governance on the" [image: IG on the move] Today *Wednesday October 22 2014* the *Internet Society UK England Chapter * (ISOC-E) in association with *International Institute of Communications UK Chapter * (IIC UK) and the *London School of Economics Media Policy Project * present *Internet Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US Government IANA oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution *. A distinguished panel will discuss the IANA transition, the current ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, and the 2015 review of the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), examining questions such as: What will the map of Internet Governance look like in a couple of years’ time? Where and how will global issues of Internet policy be discussed, from new domain names to net neutrality and other online freedoms? What is ‘the global multi-stakeholder community’? How should it oversee the basic governance structures for the Internet? What is the UK’s role and place in this evolution? Panel: *Sarah Taylor*, Deputy Director, Creative Economy, Internet, International, DCMS; *Martin Boyle*, Nominet and Member of the International Coordination Group for the transition of the IANA oversight; *Andrew Puddephat*, Global Partners Digital and European Council of Foreign Relations; *Malcolm Hutty*, Head of Public Affairs, London Internet Exchange (LINX). Moderator: *Professor Robin Mansell* of the LSE. Remote participation is available via webex. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *. *What: Internet Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US Government IANA oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution Where: London School of Economics and Political Science When: Wednesday October 22 2014 6pm-8pm BST | 1700-1900 UTC | 1300-1500 EDT Webcast: http://isoc-e.org/internet_governance_event/ Webex: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/e.php?MTID=m97a3c59163ac8bdd2a649d8e7513cc1d Twitter: #isocukengland * Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7120 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 22 13:19:42 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:49:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5447E72E.3040606@itforchange.net> And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what a neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just read the below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out rather well http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operations-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/ It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward. There can simply be no doubt in it. And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at this crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even painfully slow) evolving democratic governance of our collective global affairs including the Internet, or shifting over to neoliberal governance by the elite.. And if they side with this structural shift to neolib governance today, it will be for keeps. We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions. At the very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of us. parminder parminder On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Further to Parminder’s comments below. > > I recently published a blogpost > > (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic > model of “governance by and for the people” is in direct > conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of “governance > by and for stakeholders”. > > I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in such a > way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a value in > simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation that often > masks fundamental positions and values. > > I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue more > broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a democratic > approach to governance including in areas as central to our > experience, well-being and future as the Internet and those who would > give this governance over to decision making by those with specific > “interests/stakes” in the outcome (and where the broad public interest > if represented at all would be only one among many such competing > “stakes”) is a fundamental one. > > It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of “civil > society” and others opting for a position that does not support > democracy and democratic governance however and in what manner that > might be achieved. > > M > > *From:*IRP [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] > *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM > *To:* Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: > 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > > Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware > that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons > for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we > fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has > expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the Plenipot, > which I found interesting and valuable. > > In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your > criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely > accurate reading of its content: > > - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free > markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should > retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates > where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service > and promote robust competition." The drafters include > organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for > stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) > level. > > - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should > take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the > "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global > governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for > the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and > collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and > multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think > are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges ahead. > > That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was > poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed > by Jeanette. > > I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can > continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find > the common ground between differing positions. > > > Dear Anne > > Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage on > this discussion. But my present email will only make one point, about > the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which your email > mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that manner, but I do > often find a hyper sensitivity to political criticism in these circles > and personalisation of it, here I mean personalisation in receiving > political criticism. We must recognise that civil society work is a > work of strong conviction and submersion in that conviction... People > have a vision of the world they'd like to see, and there are forces > that block the realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for > anyone who really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I > mean, on all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a > political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil society > space, as in the conventional political space. However, for instance > in India, which has a rather high level of professional in traditional > political space, at least at the national level, political > personalities are able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their > political positions and counter positions without it being taken as > being inappropriately uncivil or any such thing. > > I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this because > many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from a > core political civil society background, and so I an really not > talking about you.) I also say it because I and people that I work > with feel that the present position that is being proposed on the > BestBits platform a major political statement that we find extremely > problematic and something that sets a solid tone for a neoliberal > paradigm for the emerging Internet-mediated society. In that respect > its impact on the world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and > social justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner > stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest it, > with all means at our disposal. > > I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above email. > > best regards > parminder > > Best > > Anne > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill > wrote: > > I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his comments. > > Best, > > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org > ]*On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; forum at justnetcoalition.org > ; IRP > *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour > sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. > However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes > there are many very important global Internet policy issues, and > then says that the ITU should not take them up, but tells us > nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a recipe for, > or at least, towards a political governance free world, the kind > one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the World > Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). > > I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important > Internet policy issues at the global level or some other > democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable > that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows those > who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly the US > based economic and political establishment, to carry on > consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an > expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and > therefore I strongly oppose it. > > To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); > > Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing > countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global > market models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a > major reversal from the stand of all developing countries and all > progressive civil society at the WSIS, where unfair global > interconnection regimes was one of the main 'development issues'. > This statement seems to close that issue by declaring that such > things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework, > or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not > clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express > mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It > appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which > will not be called a mission creep. In the circumstances one > thinks that the proponents of the statement should be bold and > just ask for the closing down of the ITU. > > Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a > treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post > Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague > Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on the ground > as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is concerned. What > other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of the states in > this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up and are > ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is > there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must > answer these questions. > > The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN > Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is > quite surprising becuase by all means, the first committee’s work > is much less participative (of other stakeholders) than even of > the ITU. So, what is the rationale here, other than just to say > ITU should not do it (we will see when we have to stop even the > first committee from doing it, but right now the imperative is.... > ). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but remember that > any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the > expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with > this issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global > governance bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair > and unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather > than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. > > The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber > security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts > and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on the > area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just give > up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet governance? > Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part of a process > towards development of global principles and agreements and not a > as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can > understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil > society? > > Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet > power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you > where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will > simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... > > Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of > all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is > very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global > stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free > reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at > plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific > Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's news, > http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to > regulate global IP TV transmissions). > > Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of > the economically and politically powerful... > > parminder > > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > > Dear colleagues > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to > try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU > Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and > participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of > you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to > develop positions on some of the most important substantive > issues before the conference. The output of this second phase > of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available > for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: > > *http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes* > > The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference > proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, > both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and > because many Member States submitted their proposals quite > late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has taken > us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. > > It is now very urgent to get this text in front of > delegations, so we are opening it for endorsements rather than > comment. If however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't > live with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, they > should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose an > edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other > members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept > this edit. > > Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not > presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or > on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of > the specific organisations endorsing. > > If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send > your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org > ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 > EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct. > > Best wishes > > Anne > > -- > > Anne Jellema > > CEO > > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > > @afjellema > > *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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org > > > > -- > > Anne Jellema > > CEO > > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > > @afjellema > > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org > | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Oct 22 13:33:50 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:33:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: WEBCAST TODAY: Internet Governance On The Move In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just to be clear, the webcast link is https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/IGonthemove/ On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > This has started. Due to tech difficulties, the webcast was a little > delayed. I am also relaying the webex video over http://bit.ly/isoctv > > > joly posted: "Today Wednesday October 22 2014 the Internet Society UK > England Chapter (ISOC-E) in association with International Institute of > Communications UK Chapter (IIC UK) and the London School of Economics Media > Policy Project present Internet Governance on the" > > [image: IG on the move] > Today *Wednesday > October 22 2014* the *Internet Society UK England Chapter > * (ISOC-E) in association with *International > Institute of Communications UK Chapter > * (IIC UK) and the *London > School of Economics Media Policy Project > * present *Internet > Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US Government IANA > oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution > *. A distinguished panel > will discuss the IANA transition, the current ITU Plenipotentiary > Conference, and the 2015 review of the UN World Summit on the Information > Society (WSIS), examining questions such as: What will the map of Internet > Governance look like in a couple of years’ time? Where and how will global > issues of Internet policy be discussed, from new domain names to net > neutrality and other online freedoms? What is ‘the global multi-stakeholder > community’? How should it oversee the basic governance structures for the > Internet? What is the UK’s role and place in this evolution? Panel: *Sarah > Taylor*, Deputy Director, Creative Economy, Internet, International, > DCMS; *Martin Boyle*, Nominet and Member of the International > Coordination Group for the transition of the IANA oversight; *Andrew > Puddephat*, Global Partners Digital and European Council of Foreign > Relations; *Malcolm Hutty*, Head of Public Affairs, London Internet > Exchange (LINX). Moderator: *Professor Robin Mansell* of the LSE. Remote > participation is available via webex. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet > Society Livestream Channel > *. > > > > > > > *What: Internet Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US > Government IANA oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution > Where: London School of > Economics and Political Science When: Wednesday October 22 2014 6pm-8pm BST > | 1700-1900 UTC | 1300-1500 EDT Webcast: > http://isoc-e.org/internet_governance_event/ > Webex: > https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/e.php?MTID=m97a3c59163ac8bdd2a649d8e7513cc1d > > Twitter: #isocukengland > * > > > Comment See all comments > > > > > > > *Permalink* > http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7120 > > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Oct 22 13:41:46 2014 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Rebello_Carib=E9?=) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:41:46 -0200 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Internet Governance On The Move In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28835BFE-9D35-4150-AB73-30B5CE9BC69A@entropia.blog.br> I've joined, than disconnected because there wasn't audio. Also I've checked with Webex audio check tools before. Em 22/10/2014, às 15:33, Joly MacFie escreveu: > Just to be clear, the webcast link is https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/IGonthemove/ > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > This has started. Due to tech difficulties, the webcast was a little delayed. I am also relaying the webex video over http://bit.ly/isoctv > > > Today Wednesday October 22 2014 the Internet Society UK England Chapter (ISOC-E) in association with International Institute of Communications UK Chapter (IIC UK) and the London School of Economics Media Policy Project present Internet Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US Government IANA oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution. A distinguished panel will discuss the IANA transition, the current ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, and the 2015 review of the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), examining questions such as: What will the map of Internet Governance look like in a couple of years’ time? Where and how will global issues of Internet policy be discussed, from new domain names to net neutrality and other online freedoms? What is ‘the global multi-stakeholder community’? How should it oversee the basic governance structures for the Internet? What is the UK’s role and place in this evolution? Panel: Sarah Taylor, Deputy Director, Creative Economy, Internet, International, DCMS; Martin Boyle, Nominet and Member of the International Coordination Group for the transition of the IANA oversight; Andrew Puddephat, Global Partners Digital and European Council of Foreign Relations; Malcolm Hutty, Head of Public Affairs, London Internet Exchange (LINX). Moderator: Professor Robin Mansell of the LSE. Remote participation is available via webex. The event will be webcast live on the Internet Society Livestream Channel. > > What: Internet Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US Government IANA oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution > Where: London School of Economics and Political Science > When: Wednesday October 22 2014 6pm-8pm BST | 1700-1900 UTC | 1300-1500 EDT > Webcast: http://isoc-e.org/internet_governance_event/ > Webex: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/e.php?MTID=m97a3c59163ac8bdd2a649d8e7513cc1d > Twitter: #isocukengland > > > Comment See all comments > > > Permalink > http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7120 > > > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 13:51:45 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:51:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <5447E72E.3040606@itforchange.net> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> <5447E72E.3040606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <00bf01cfee20$d8bc58a0$8a3509e0$@gmail.com> Just to add that Fadi's (and the CS's statement's) position that either you have MSism or you have the ITU is a complete red herring. The UN (as with the ITU) were of their time and gave enormous service on behalf of the global public interest. With the Internet we have entered into a new era, one where principles of representation as through the UN and the UN's state oriented structure is perhaps no longer an appropriate and effective protector/proponent of the global public interest. That doesn't mean that we should discard the "we the peoples" democratic basis of the UN Charter but rather that we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting those necessary democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. The alternative is not the ITU vs. MSism but rather democratic governance vs. governance by and for corporate and other "stakeholders" and of course our challenge is to find ways of designing and implementing the new forms, mechanisms and processes to respond to the new challenges and resources of democracy in a new Internet age. WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED * to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and * to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and * to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and * to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom M From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:20 AM To: michael gurstein; 'Anne Jellema'; rhill at hill-a.ch Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what a neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just read the below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out rather well http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operat ions-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/ It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward. There can simply be no doubt in it. And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at this crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even painfully slow) evolving democratic governance of our collective global affairs including the Internet, or shifting over to neoliberal governance by the elite.. And if they side with this structural shift to neolib governance today, it will be for keeps. We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions. At the very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of us. parminder parminder On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Further to Parminder's comments below. I recently published a blogpost (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic model of "governance by and for the people" is in direct conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of "governance by and for stakeholders". I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in such a way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a value in simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation that often masks fundamental positions and values. I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue more broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a democratic approach to governance including in areas as central to our experience, well-being and future as the Internet and those who would give this governance over to decision making by those with specific "interests/stakes" in the outcome (and where the broad public interest if represented at all would be only one among many such competing "stakes") is a fundamental one. It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of "civil society" and others opting for a position that does not support democracy and democratic governance however and in what manner that might be achieved. M From: IRP [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM To: Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable. In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate reading of its content: - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service and promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) level. - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges ahead. That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by Jeanette. I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find the common ground between differing positions. Dear Anne Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage on this discussion. But my present email will only make one point, about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which your email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that manner, but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political criticism in these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction and submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the world they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil society space, as in the conventional political space. However, for instance in India, which has a rather high level of professional in traditional political space, at least at the national level, political personalities are able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their political positions and counter positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil or any such thing. I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this because many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from a core political civil society background, and so I an really not talking about you.) I also say it because I and people that I work with feel that the present position that is being proposed on the BestBits platform a major political statement that we find extremely problematic and something that sets a solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and social justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest it, with all means at our disposal. I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above email. best regards parminder Best Anne On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill wrote: I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his comments. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of parminder Sent: mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org; IRP Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes there are many very important global Internet policy issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important Internet policy issues at the global level or some other democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows those who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly the US based economic and political establishment, to carry on consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly oppose it. To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global market models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand of all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the main 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that issue by declaring that such things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework, or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must answer these questions. The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first committee's work is much less participative (of other stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on the area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part of a process towards development of global principles and agreements and not a as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil society? Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to regulate global IP TV transmissions). Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of the economically and politically powerful... parminder On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: Dear colleagues As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to develop positions on some of the most important substantive issues before the conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and because many Member States submitted their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept this edit. Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of the specific organisations endorsing. If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct. Best wishes Anne -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema 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 _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum at justnetcoalition.org http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Oct 22 14:08:21 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:08:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Internet Governance On The Move In-Reply-To: <28835BFE-9D35-4150-AB73-30B5CE9BC69A@entropia.blog.br> References: <28835BFE-9D35-4150-AB73-30B5CE9BC69A@entropia.blog.br> Message-ID: audio is def on in webex. Try http://bit.ly/isoctv On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:41 PM, João Carlos Rebello Caribé < caribe at entropia.blog.br> wrote: > I've joined, than disconnected because there wasn't audio. > Also I've checked with Webex audio check tools before. > > > Em 22/10/2014, às 15:33, Joly MacFie escreveu: > > Just to be clear, the webcast link is > https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/IGonthemove/ > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > >> This has started. Due to tech difficulties, the webcast was a little >> delayed. I am also relaying the webex video over http://bit.ly/isoctv >> >> >> joly posted: "Today Wednesday October 22 2014 the Internet Society UK >> England Chapter (ISOC-E) in association with International Institute of >> Communications UK Chapter (IIC UK) and the London School of Economics Media >> Policy Project present Internet Governance on the" >> >> [image: IG on the move] >> Today *Wednesday >> October 22 2014* the *Internet Society UK England Chapter >> * (ISOC-E) in association with *International >> Institute of Communications UK Chapter >> * (IIC UK) and the *London >> School of Economics Media Policy Project >> * present *Internet >> Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US Government IANA >> oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution >> *. A distinguished panel >> will discuss the IANA transition, the current ITU Plenipotentiary >> Conference, and the 2015 review of the UN World Summit on the Information >> Society (WSIS), examining questions such as: What will the map of Internet >> Governance look like in a couple of years’ time? Where and how will global >> issues of Internet policy be discussed, from new domain names to net >> neutrality and other online freedoms? What is ‘the global multi-stakeholder >> community’? How should it oversee the basic governance structures for the >> Internet? What is the UK’s role and place in this evolution? Panel: *Sarah >> Taylor*, Deputy Director, Creative Economy, Internet, International, >> DCMS; *Martin Boyle*, Nominet and Member of the International >> Coordination Group for the transition of the IANA oversight; *Andrew >> Puddephat*, Global Partners Digital and European Council of Foreign >> Relations; *Malcolm Hutty*, Head of Public Affairs, London Internet >> Exchange (LINX). Moderator: *Professor Robin Mansell* of the LSE. Remote >> participation is available via webex. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet >> Society Livestream Channel >> *. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *What: Internet Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US >> Government IANA oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution >> Where: London School of >> Economics and Political Science When: Wednesday October 22 2014 6pm-8pm BST >> | 1700-1900 UTC | 1300-1500 EDT Webcast: >> http://isoc-e.org/internet_governance_event/ >> Webex: >> https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/e.php?MTID=m97a3c59163ac8bdd2a649d8e7513cc1d >> >> Twitter: #isocukengland >> * >> >> >> Comment See all comments >> >> >> >> *Permalink* >> http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7120 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 jmalcolm at eff.org Wed Oct 22 15:42:04 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:42:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <54472CDE.6060808@gmail.com> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472CDE.6060808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5448088C.6020101@eff.org> On 21/10/2014 9:04 pm, parminder wrote: > BTW, as I mentioned above, so much of 'global' Internet issues get > taken up today by the OECD's CICCP.... You proposal call for making > ITU CWG-PP multistakeholder. Interesting, and I have asked this > question often, I have never seen the civil society groups involved > with OECD's CICCP work - which included a lot of those who have signed > on this present ITU related statement - seek making the CICCP > multistakeholder.... Would this not count as hypocrisy. It is already putatively multi-stakeholder, though it's a different and lesser implementation of multi-stakeholderism than those of other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN and the IGF (though closer to the former than the latter). There was a big fight to get it to open up as much as it has, with the creation of the CSISAC. I agree that since then, we have been muted in our calls to improve it further - though we have made some noise asking OECD to support CSISAC better. Not only the OECD needs to improve its implementation of multi-stakeholderism, but other regional bodies like APEC need to become multi-stakeholder too - it's a long battle on multiple fronts. So far I'm focussed on only some of those, like TPP, which you've already identified. Also important is for us to present a clear standard of what kind of multi-stakeholderism we want, which was the reason for attempting to use LiquidFeedback to develop such a standard that civil society could broadly support (this has faltered, but I am still committed to seeing it through). The conception that the distributed, multi-stakeholder ideal for Internet governance is a neoliberal fantasy, in distinction to the so-called democratic/statist model, is quite bogus, by the way - but I'm not going to jump back into that debate right now. Very happy to leave that to Niels and Stephanie who have replied so far. -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 22 16:04:11 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 20:04:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Message-ID: <01f4bda58af94b46af24f5d34136c364@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote. Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however: we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip] democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 16:34:51 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:34:51 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <01f4bda58af94b46af24f5d34136c364@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <01f4bda58af94b46af24f5d34136c364@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <018001cfee37$a21cc480$e6564d80$@gmail.com> Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity and multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including through their representative governance structures most of which at least nominally have presented themselves as "democracies". True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as a fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue, self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western, technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites. But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in opting for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", would that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties lie.. M From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM To: 'michael gurstein' Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote. Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however: we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip] democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu Oct 23 06:41:53 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:41:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Message-ID: Surely we need both multi stakeholder and intergovernmental processes? They are not mutually exclusive in my view and increasing transparency,  inclusion and accountability is needed for both.  Anriette Sent from Samsung Mobile
-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Hill
Date:23/10/2014 11:37 (GMT+02:00)
To: michael gurstein ,'Milton L Mueller'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net,'IRP' ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations
Milton says: "I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule." In contrast, I think that it might be worth trying the good old intergovernmental system, despite its defects, given that the "private sector-based MS institutions" have failed to solve the urgent issues identified by the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004: the asymmetric role of the US government, the relatively high cost of Internet connectivity in developing countries, and the lack of security. Sorry to be repetitive, but please see: http://www.apig.ch/WSIS%20APIG%20statement.doc and http://newsclick.in/international/review-schiller-dan-2014-digital-depress ion-information-technology-and-economic-crisis Further, "majority rule" is an element of democracy, but it is not the only element. On the contrary, respect for human rights is a fundamental element, and it is that element, together with the rule of law (which includes due process), that protects minorities from undue oppression by majorities. Until we create a full fledged "Internet nation", we are stuck with the nations that we have, and we should use their good features while striving to correct their bad features. Calling for an abrogation of state involvement in the absence of alternatives that ensure democracy, and social and economic justice, is not something that I can support. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 22:35 To: 'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity and multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including through their representative governance structures most of which at least nominally have presented themselves as "democracies". True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as a fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue, self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western, technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites. But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in opting for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", would that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties lie.. M From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM To: 'michael gurstein' Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote. Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however: we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip] democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 23 07:03:00 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:03:00 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642797@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> The Intergovernmental organizations and the related intergovernmental treaty system (as the ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO etc.) will continue to play a specific role but it is now embedded in a multistakeholder environment. The key reference is the working definition of Internet Governance from the Tunis Agenda, which has stated that "decision making procedures" with regard to Internet Governance has to be "shared" among all stakeholders. This means that there is no "Hierarchie Structure" among the stakeholders but a "Network Structure" where stakeholders operate in their respective roles on equal footing and has to work hand in Hand towards rough consensus and without veto rights. This does not exclude that the individual stakeholder groups make their own arrangements among themselves which can include also arrangements among governments in form of treaties under international law. wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen Gesendet: Do 23.10.2014 12:41 An: rhill at hill-a.ch; michael gurstein; 'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Betreff: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Surely we need both multi stakeholder and intergovernmental processes? They are not mutually exclusive in my view and increasing transparency,  inclusion and accountability is needed for both.  Anriette Sent from Samsung Mobile
-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Hill
Date:23/10/2014 11:37 (GMT+02:00)
To: michael gurstein ,'Milton L Mueller'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net,'IRP' ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations
Milton says: "I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule." In contrast, I think that it might be worth trying the good old intergovernmental system, despite its defects, given that the "private sector-based MS institutions" have failed to solve the urgent issues identified by the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004: the asymmetric role of the US government, the relatively high cost of Internet connectivity in developing countries, and the lack of security. Sorry to be repetitive, but please see: http://www.apig.ch/WSIS%20APIG%20statement.doc and http://newsclick.in/international/review-schiller-dan-2014-digital-depress ion-information-technology-and-economic-crisis Further, "majority rule" is an element of democracy, but it is not the only element. On the contrary, respect for human rights is a fundamental element, and it is that element, together with the rule of law (which includes due process), that protects minorities from undue oppression by majorities. Until we create a full fledged "Internet nation", we are stuck with the nations that we have, and we should use their good features while striving to correct their bad features. Calling for an abrogation of state involvement in the absence of alternatives that ensure democracy, and social and economic justice, is not something that I can support. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 22:35 To: 'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity and multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including through their representative governance structures most of which at least nominally have presented themselves as "democracies". True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as a fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue, self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western, technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites. But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in opting for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", would that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties lie.. M From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM To: 'michael gurstein' Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote. Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however: we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip] democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 23 08:13:38 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:13:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] MS and intergovernmental processes (was Re: Time-sensitive... ITUPlenipot...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20141023141338.4a3768ae@quill> [some lists snipped from Cc] On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:41:53 +0200 Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Surely we need both multi stakeholder and intergovernmental > processes? They are not mutually exclusive in my view and increasing > transparency,  inclusion and accountability is needed for both.  I agree. I would be very interested in your and everyone's comments and views specifically on the following two aspects: a) Where do you see the distinction between the contributions that each of these types of processes can make? (What can be achieved through intergovernmental processes? What can be achieved through multistakeholder processes? Where should the boundary line or interface between the two be?) b) Who should multistakeholder processes be accountable to, and how can such accountability be achieved? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 08:44:06 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:44:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642797@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642797@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: " *The key reference is the working definition of Internet Governance from the Tunis Agenda, which has stated that "decision making procedures" with regard to Internet Governance has to be "shared" among all stakeholders. This means that there is no "Hierarchie Structure" among the stakeholders but a "Network Structure" where stakeholders operate in their respective roles on equal footing and has to work hand in Hand towards rough consensus and without veto rights*". I fully support this Wolfgang argument . In my opinion, I think the rules of the games have already been defined since 2003 and 2005, more specifically, in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda. Should we still questioning a document which was approved by all members of the United Nations? I realize that this is also from this period that the multi-stakeholder approach arose. . Currently our platforms or discussion networks have adopted this approach even if the part of governments and private sectors, it is not yet so accepted. In the field of digital technology, it is an inescapable approach. 2014-10-23 13:03 GMT+02:00 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>: > The Intergovernmental organizations and the related intergovernmental > treaty system (as the ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO etc.) will continue to play a > specific role but it is now embedded in a multistakeholder environment. The > key reference is the working definition of Internet Governance from the > Tunis Agenda, which has stated that "decision making procedures" with > regard to Internet Governance has to be "shared" among all stakeholders. > This means that there is no "Hierarchie Structure" among the stakeholders > but a "Network Structure" where stakeholders operate in their respective > roles on equal footing and has to work hand in Hand towards rough consensus > and without veto rights. This does not exclude that the individual > stakeholder groups make their own arrangements among themselves which can > include also arrangements among governments in form of treaties under > international law. > > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette > Esterhuysen > Gesendet: Do 23.10.2014 12:41 > An: rhill at hill-a.ch; michael gurstein; 'Milton L Mueller' > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > Betreff: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 > hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations > > Surely we need both multi stakeholder and intergovernmental processes? > They are not mutually exclusive in my view and increasing transparency, > inclusion and accountability is needed for both. > > Anriette > > > > Sent from Samsung Mobile > >
-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Hill < > rhill at hill-a.ch>
Date:23/10/2014 11:37 (GMT+02:00) >
To: michael gurstein ,'Milton L Mueller' < > mueller at syr.edu>
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net,'IRP' < > Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>,governance at lists.igcaucus.org, > forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - > Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on > period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations
>
Milton says: > > "I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of > that > than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation > of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions > work > better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better > precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure > majority rule." > > In contrast, I think that it might be worth trying the good old > intergovernmental system, despite its defects, given that the "private > sector-based MS institutions" have failed to solve the urgent issues > identified by the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004: the > asymmetric role of the US government, the relatively high cost of Internet > connectivity in developing countries, and the lack of security. Sorry to > be > repetitive, but please see: > > http://www.apig.ch/WSIS%20APIG%20statement.doc > > and > > > http://newsclick.in/international/review-schiller-dan-2014-digital-depress > ion-information-technology-and-economic-crisis > > Further, "majority rule" is an element of democracy, but it is not the only > element. On the contrary, respect for human rights is a fundamental > element, and it is that element, together with the rule of law (which > includes due process), that protects minorities from undue oppression by > majorities. > > Until we create a full fledged "Internet nation", we are stuck with the > nations that we have, and we should use their good features while striving > to correct their bad features. > > Calling for an abrogation of state involvement in the absence of > alternatives that ensure democracy, and social and economic justice, is not > something that I can support. > > Best, > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of > michael > gurstein > Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 22:35 > To: 'Milton L Mueller' > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for > ITUPlenipot joint recommendations > > > Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity > and > multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms > of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including > through their representative governance structures most of which at least > nominally have presented themselves as "democracies". > > True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of > us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as > a > fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the > legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue, > self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through > corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western, > technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites. > > But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in > opting > for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", > would > that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties > lie.. > > M > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM > To: 'michael gurstein' > Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' > Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint > recommendations > > The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we > the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and > international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with > equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote. > > Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however: > > we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip] > democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. > > But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a > better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its > clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some > of > these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of > communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the > old > sense of pure majority rule. > > Milton L. Mueller > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 08:46:35 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 05:46:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <013f01cfeebf$6413b0d0$2c3b1270$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 2:22 AM To: Niels ten Oever; parminder; michael gurstein; 'Anne Jellema' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Please see below. Thanks and best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org] > Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 19:37 > To: parminder; michael gurstein; 'Anne Jellema'; rhill at hill-a.ch > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: > 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Dear Parminder, > > I am a bit amazed that you first make a point on how we should > substantively discuss issues, whereas you post this polemic directly > after. And I'm amazed that such an unbalanced statement is produced by a process that I never heard of. So it seems perfectly appropriate to me that those of us who were surprised by that statement make public comments about it. > > It's perhaps slightly ironic that some of the people that you accuse > of pushing the neo-liberal model were exactly the ones at ICANN51 in > LA pushing for a human rights mechanism within ICANN. To me, the first human rights mechanism to push for is democracy, that is the right of everyone to take part in public policiy decisions, either directly or through freely chosen representatives. So I'd like to see proposals to move ICANN in that direction, for example by making it a membership organization accountable to its members. > > I am surprised that you see discussing issues of content and privacy > at the ITU a part of evolving democratic governance. The ITU is not > nearly transparent enough for this to be an appropriate venue to > discuss this. We agree that the ITU must become more open and transparent. But that is the case of all other forums that might be candidates for discussing such issues. For example, WIPO did not accept the Pirate Party's request for admission as an observer. The opposition came from the USA. So the discussion in ITU should be (1) it must become more open and transparent and (2) it should do this or that. If you don't want the ITU to discuss the issues, then who should discuss the issues? I suppose that you might refer to what are called multi-stakeholder forums such as Netmundial or IGF. But we all know that those forums cannot make tough decisions. Look at what happened at Netmundial regarding mass surveillance (reaffirmed language agreed in the UN General Assembly) and net neutrality (agreed that it is an issue to be further studied). So what forum is proposed in which tough decisions can be made? >Surveillance is not just an attack on infrastructure, it is a serious >interference with the human right to privacy. The ITU has not got >sufficient competence when it comes to human rights. > Discussing privacy violations and surveillance should start with the >UN Human Rights Council. The discussions in the Human Rights Council have taken place, and the conclusions are, as we all know, clear: mass surveillance must be stopped. So it is no longer a question of starting discussions. It is a question of taking effective measures to end this violation of human rights. Secrecy (meaning privacy) of telecommunications has been a fundamental concept from the inception of telecommunications. An article to that effect was included in the 1865 treaty that created the ITU and has been present in the ITU Constitution ever since. At present, the article reads as follows: ARTICLE 37 - Secrecy of Telecommunications 1 Member States agree to take all possible measures, compatible with the system of telecommunication used, with a view to ensuring the secrecy of international correspondence. 2 Nevertheless, they reserve the right to communicate such correspondence to the competent authorities in order to ensure the application of their national laws or the execution of international conventions to which they are parties. I am among those who believe that the current language in the ITU Constitution is inadequate and should be improved. Some concrete proposals to that effect have been made, see for example: http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/HCHR_report_final.pdf I would have expected at least acknowlegement of the laudable intent of such proposals, if not outright support. > > Saying that the ITU is not the right platform to discuss this is not > at all the same thing as saying that this issue should be left to the > market or the US government (or five/nine-eyes for that matter). Why shouldn't the issue be discussed in ITU, as well as in all other appropriate forums? Surely there is no harm in making it clear in all possible forums that mass surveillance must end. Just as we must make it clear in all possible forums that censorship must end. And that social and economic justice must prevail. >And I > would even say that it is an deliberate misrepresentation that does >not help the substantive discussion, and the deep thinking that is >indeed needed, any further. I'd now like to turn in more detail to a couple of specific areas of the statement that you are defending. Spectrum policy =============== The statement that you are defending call on the ITU to give high priority to the development and implementation of license exempt global standards for dynamic spectrum access. In case people don't know, that topic is more commonly referred to as "white spaces" and it is about using a portion of the frequency band that has been deliberately left unused in order to minimize interference, see for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio) Whether or not it makes sense to allow such use is very much a national matter (in fact maybe even a local matter). Which does not mean that it should not be discussed in ITU: indeed, harmonization of national practices is the very reason why intergovernmental bodies exist. But I would have expected civil society to consider the economic aspects of this issue. It is widely accepted that radio frequencies are a public good, to be managed in the interests of all citizens. And it is common for states to derive revenue from the commercial use of certain frequencies. So, for example, a civil society position could be that "white space" should not be made freely accessible, but should be subject to auctions. Or maybe not, but for sure the matter deserves some discussion. For more on the commercial aspects of this issue, see for example: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/white-space-the-next-internet-disruption-10-things-to-know/ It is also worth noting that Google is quite involved in this, see: http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-approves-googles-white-space-database-operation/ International Connection ======================== The statement that you are defending essentially calls on the ITU not to take any steps that would address the cost of international Internet connectivity. Yet those costs have long been considered to be an issue that has hampered access to the Internet in developing countries, see: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com03/iic/ http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-D.50-201305-I!Sup2 For sure, some take the view that purely national measures are sufficient, which is what your statement says, but that is by no means a consensus view. On the contrary, it is the view of developed countries, whose position is no doubt influenced by the economic interests of their large private operators. I am surprised that civil society is overtly taking the side of big businesss in this debate. Similar comments apply to some of the other portions of the statement that you are defending, but I will stop here (at least for now). > > Best, > > Niels > > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > On 10/22/2014 07:19 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what a > > neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just read > > the below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out rather > > well > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/inter > net-operations-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/ > > > > > > > > It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward. > > There can simply be no doubt in it. > > > > And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at > > this crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even painfully > > slow) evolving democratic governance of our collective global > > affairs including the Internet, or shifting over to neoliberal > > governance by the elite.. And if they side with this structural > > shift to neolib governance today, it will be for keeps. > > We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions. At the > > very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of us. > > > > parminder > > > > parminder > > > > > > On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> > >> Further to Parminder’s comments below. > >> > >> I recently published a blogpost > >> > holderism-competing-models-of-governance/> > >> > >> > (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic > >> model of “governance by and for the people” is in direct > >> conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of > >> “governance by and for stakeholders”. > >> > >> I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in > >> such a way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a > >> value in simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation > >> that often masks fundamental positions and values. > >> > >> I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue > >> more broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a > >> democratic approach to governance including in areas as central to > >> our experience, well-being and future as the Internet and those who > >> would give this governance over to decision making by those with > >> specific “interests/stakes” in the outcome (and where the broad > >> public interest if represented at all would be only one among many > >> such competing “stakes”) is a fundamental one. > >> > >> It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of “civil > >> society” and others opting for a position that does not support > >> democracy and democratic governance however and in what manner that > >> might be achieved. > >> > >> M > >> > >> *From:*IRP > >> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On > >> Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM > >> *To:* Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch *Cc:* > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > >> forum at justnetcoalition.org *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - > >> Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > >> Plenipot joint recommendations > >> > >> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >> > >> Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware > >> that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for > >> holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully > >> respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed > >> its point of view in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I > >> found interesting and valuable. > >> > >> In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your > >> criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely > >> accurate reading of its content: > >> > >> - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free > >> markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should > >> retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates > >> where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service > >> and promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations > >> that have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net > >> neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) level. > >> > >> - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should > >> take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the > >> "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global > >> governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for > >> the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and > >> collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and > >> multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think > >> are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges > >> ahead. > >> > >> That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" > >> was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as > >> proposed by Jeanette. > >> > >> I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views > >> can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to > >> find the common ground between differing positions. > >> > >> > >> Dear Anne > >> > >> Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage > >> on this discussion. But my present email will only make one point, > >> about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which your > >> email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that manner, > >> but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political criticism in > >> these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean > >> personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must recognise > >> that civil society work is a work of strong conviction and > >> submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the world > >> they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the realisation > >> of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who really cares, > >> the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on all sides of > >> what could become a political divide. And such a political divide > >> is as possible, even likely, in the civil society space, as in the > >> conventional political space. However, for instance in India, which > >> has a rather high level of professional in traditional political > >> space, at least at the national level, political personalities are > >> able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their political > >> positions and counter positions without it being taken as being > >> inappropriately uncivil or any such thing. > >> > >> I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this because > >> many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from > >> a core political civil society background, and so I an really not > >> talking about you.) I also say it because I and people that I work > >> with feel that the present position that is being proposed on the > >> BestBits platform a major political statement that we find > >> extremely problematic and something that sets a solid tone for a > >> neoliberal paradigm for the emerging Internet-mediated society. In > >> that respect its impact on the world, especially in terms of > >> democracy, equity and social justice is going to be far reaching, > >> and these are the corner stone canons of our work. And therefore > >> we will strongly contest it, with all means at our disposal. > >> > >> I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above > >> email. > >> > >> best regards parminder > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Anne > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill >> > wrote: > >> > >> I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his > >> comments. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Richard > >> > >> -----Original Message----- *From:* Forum > >> [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org > >> ]*On Behalf Of > >> *parminder *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 *To:* > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> ; > >> forum at justnetcoalition.org ; > >> IRP *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour > >> sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > >> > >> > >> I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. > >> However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes > >> there are many very important global Internet policy issues, and > >> then says that the ITU should not take them up, but tells us > >> nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a recipe for, > >> or at least, towards a political governance free world, the kind > >> one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the World > >> Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). > >> > >> I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important > >> Internet policy issues at the global level or some other democratic > >> global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable that they be > >> just left hanging out there, which only allows those who have the > >> greatest default power on the Internet, mostly the US based > >> economic and political establishment, to carry on consolidating > >> their power. This statement for me is simply an expression of > >> support for the Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly > >> oppose it. > >> > >> To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); > >> > >> Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing > >> countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global > >> market models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a > >> major reversal from the stand of all developing countries and all > >> progressive civil society at the WSIS, where unfair global > >> interconnection regimes was one of the main 'development issues'. > >> This statement seems to close that issue by declaring that such > >> things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework, > >> or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not > >> clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express > >> mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It > >> appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which > >> will not be called a mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks > >> that the proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask > >> for the closing down of the ITU. > >> > >> Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a > >> treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post > >> Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague > >> Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on the ground as > >> far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is concerned. What other > >> than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of the states in this > >> regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up and are ready > >> to allow the powerful to do what they may? > >> Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of? > >> Civil society must answer these questions. > >> > >> The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN > >> Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. > >> That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first > >> committee’s work is much less participative (of other > >> stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale here, > >> other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see when we > >> have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but right now > >> the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first committee doing > >> it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber security treaty > >> will require the expertise of ITU which is the agency that has > >> hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply obstructionist > >> attitude to global governance bespeaks of a movement towards a very > >> unequal, unfair and unjust world. > >> Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly > >> signing on this rather dangerous statement. > >> > >> The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber security > >> treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts and > >> principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on the area > >> of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just give up in > >> these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet governance? > >> Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part of a process > >> towards development of global principles and agreements and not a > >> as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can > >> understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil > >> society? > >> > >> Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet > >> power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you > >> where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will > >> simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... > >> > >> Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of > >> all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is > >> very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global > >> stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free reign, > >> and the little policy that needs to be made is made at plurilateral > >> forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (see > >> for instance, just the day before's news, > >> http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to regulate > >> global IP TV transmissions). > >> > >> Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of > >> the economically and politically powerful... > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >> > >> Dear colleagues > >> > >> As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try > >> to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. > >> We produced the open letter on transparency and participation in > >> the Plenipot process itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). > >> Our second and harder task was to develop positions on some of the > >> most important substantive issues before the conference. The output > >> of this second phase of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is > >> now available for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: > >> > >> *http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes* > >> > >> The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference > >> proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both > >> because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and because > >> many Member States submitted their proposals quite late in the day. > >> As a result, our drafting process has taken us hard up against the > >> start of the Plenipot itself. > >> > >> It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so > >> we are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however > >> someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" > >> issue that prevents them from signing on, they should email me > >> personally in the next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve > >> this issue, and I will consult the other members of the ITU fluid > >> working group on whether to accept this edit. > >> > >> Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not > >> presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on > >> behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of the > >> specific organisations endorsing. > >> > >> If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your > >> logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org > >> ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) > >> tomorrow, 21 Oct. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> > >> Anne > >> > >> -- Anne Jellema > >> > >> CEO > >> > >> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > >> > >> +1 202 684 6885 (US) > >> > >> @afjellema > >> > >> *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 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list > >> Forum at justnetcoalition.org > >> http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition > >> .org > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > - -- > >> > >> Anne Jellema > >> > >> CEO > >> > >> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > >> > >> +1 202 684 6885 (US) > >> > >> @afjellema > >> > >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > >> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org > >> | Twitter: @webfoundation* > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ 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 > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUR+s/AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpBSMH/0PR5KgEQ1rHeUZTUO7b3YWi > kvYktLQp3oIwMwepxgahmNLZww8vWE3P70z/gLyNc7ZG0JlO2o0W6hgyRlpZzkWk > 4t9u1ryOZ/CXWYLd53zQ13bPZuDeqAud3hheGIsozCdGkbXZpvMuznc1d+S2mTBC > fwnqggGTUfpRmcIti5gR+rUmwtqFnKALz1+GfPyqBxvt8IeqvZGTRzT5kg/qxj0e > wmuYgMBqicTfb42b2McAT5SCsm12JXhyM9EpHLZefcgClbh8VsVA/LqOwnbMLVgy > 1jLTLGeGxDwmWrerYKVlbNhaeTYZdM7DA7Rp3miKirMoe7kBbTDexEkM2Mw2KWM= > =b/3V > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 08:46:35 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 05:46:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014001cfeebf$65670bd0$30352370$@gmail.com> I of course, agree with your statement but please note that I was discussing processes of “democratic governance” and not as you mistakenly suggest, “intergovernmental processes”. Having the foundation of governance based in “democratic processes” is most certainly mutually exclusive from multistakeholder governance processes based in elite self-selection or as in Milton’s formulation "private sector-based MS institutions".. M October 23, 2014 3:42 AM To: rhill at hill-a.ch; michael gurstein; 'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Surely we need both multi stakeholder and intergovernmental processes? They are not mutually exclusive in my view and increasing transparency, inclusion and accountability is needed for both. Anriette Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Richard Hill Date:23/10/2014 11:37 (GMT+02:00) To: michael gurstein ,'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net,'IRP' ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Milton says: "I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule." In contrast, I think that it might be worth trying the good old intergovernmental system, despite its defects, given that the "private sector-based MS institutions" have failed to solve the urgent issues identified by the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004: the asymmetric role of the US government, the relatively high cost of Internet connectivity in developing countries, and the lack of security. Sorry to be repetitive, but please see: http://www.apig.ch/WSIS%20APIG%20statement.doc and http://newsclick.in/international/review-schiller-dan-2014-digital-depress ion-information-technology-and-economic-crisis Further, "majority rule" is an element of democracy, but it is not the only element. On the contrary, respect for human rights is a fundamental element, and it is that element, together with the rule of law (which includes due process), that protects minorities from undue oppression by majorities. Until we create a full fledged "Internet nation", we are stuck with the nations that we have, and we should use their good features while striving to correct their bad features. Calling for an abrogation of state involvement in the absence of alternatives that ensure democracy, and social and economic justice, is not something that I can support. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 22:35 To: 'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity and multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including through their representative governance structures most of which at least nominally have presented themselves as "democracies". True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as a fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue, self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western, technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites. But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in opting for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", would that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties lie.. M From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM To: 'michael gurstein' Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote. Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however: we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip] democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 05:49:02 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 02:49:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Plutocrats Against Democracy In-Reply-To: <112AD828-226C-4731-86D7-A139CD7D060E@warpspeed.com> References: <112AD828-226C-4731-86D7-A139CD7D060E@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <015e01cfef6f$be40f490$3ac2ddb0$@gmail.com> Perhaps some insights here that have relevance to our current discussion on democracy vs. multistakeholderism (decision making by self-selected elites) as models for Internet Governance. M -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:56 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Plutocrats Against Democracy Plutocrats Against Democracy By Paul Krugman Oct 23 2014 It's always good when leaders tell the truth, especially if that wasn't their intention. So we should be grateful to Leung Chun-ying, the Beijing-backed leader of Hong Kong, for blurting out the real reason pro-democracy demonstrators can't get what they want: With open voting, "You would be talking to half of the people in Hong Kong who earn less than $1,800 a month. Then you would end up with that kind of politics and policies" - policies, presumably, that would make the rich less rich and provide more aid to those with lower incomes. So Mr. Leung is worried about the 50 percent of Hong Kong's population that, he believes, would vote for bad policies because they don't make enough money. This may sound like the 47 percent of Americans who Mitt Romney said would vote against him because they don't pay income taxes and, therefore, don't take responsibility for themselves, or the 60 percent that Representative Paul Ryan argued pose a danger because they are "takers," getting more from the government than they pay in. Indeed, these are all basically the same thing. For the political right has always been uncomfortable with democracy. No matter how well conservatives do in elections, no matter how thoroughly free-market ideology dominates discourse, there is always an undercurrent of fear that the great unwashed will vote in left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand out largess to the poor, and destroy the economy. In fact, the very success of the conservative agenda only intensifies this fear. Many on the right - and I'm not just talking about people listening to Rush Limbaugh; I'm talking about members of the political elite - live, at least part of the time, in an alternative universe in which America has spent the past few decades marching rapidly down the road to serfdom. Never mind the new Gilded Age that tax cuts and financial deregulation have created; they're reading books with titles like "A Nation of Takers: America's Entitlement Epidemic," asserting that the big problem we have is runaway redistribution. This is a fantasy. Still, is there anything to fears that economic populism will lead to economic disaster? Not really. Lower-income voters are much more supportive than the wealthy toward policies that benefit people like them, and they generally support higher taxes at the top. But if you worry that low-income voters will run wild, that they'll greedily grab everything and tax job creators into oblivion, history says that you're wrong. All advanced nations have had substantial welfare states since the 1940s - welfare states that, inevitably, have stronger support among their poorer citizens. But you don't, in fact, see countries descending into tax-and-spend death spirals - and no, that's not what ails Europe. Still, while the "kind of politics and policies" that responds to the bottom half of the income distribution won't destroy the economy, it does tend to crimp the incomes and wealth of the 1 percent, at least a bit; the top 0.1 percent is paying quite a lot more in taxes right now than it would have if Mr. Romney had won. So what's a plutocrat to do? One answer is propaganda: tell voters, often and loudly, that taxing the rich and helping the poor will cause economic disaster, while cutting taxes on "job creators" will create prosperity for all. There's a reason conservative faith in the magic of tax cuts persists no matter how many times such prophecies fail (as is happening right now in Kansas): There's a lavishly funded industry of think tanks and media organizations dedicated to promoting and preserving that faith. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 09:43:49 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:43:49 -0500 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <02ec01cfeef1$6ea28f30$4be7ad90$@gmail.com> References: <54494080.6050004@eff.org> <02ec01cfeef1$6ea28f30$4be7ad90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:44 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Jeremy, > > I think the more useful way forward than engaging in these types of slanging matches is to begin working towards effective accountable democratic governance structures and modalities for the age of the Internet. By my scoring, you are the only one doing the slanging. If you had experience in the "classical" MSism, you would understand that there are effective accountability mechanisms in the "classical" regimes. -- 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 Fri Oct 24 09:51:04 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:51:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] 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> Message-ID: <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> 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 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”. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 09:53:51 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:53:51 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: It would be a right thing to agree upon this position and highlight this position for the good of the Internet and in the interest of good governance of the Internet and beyond :) Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 6:51 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > 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 * 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”. > > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 24 09:55:22 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:55:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1494270a940.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Does that mean 'people who step up to do real work'? That would be stakeholders. There are other steakholders who don't have any sweat or other equity invested in a process but still demand a stake.. On 24 October 2014 9:51:53 am "michael gurstein" wrote: > 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 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”. > > 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 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 09:59:09 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:59:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] 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$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> 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 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”. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 09:59:09 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:59:09 -0700 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <54494080.6050004@eff.org> <02ec01cfeef1$6ea28f30$4be7ad90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <022801cfef92$b0430680$10c91380$@gmail.com> As I said McTim I have little to comment on "classical" MSism. However, I would be very interested to hear how you would see the accountability mechanisms in "classical" MSism applied in more global models of governance whether democratic (as I was looking for below) or the MSist model? M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:44 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; rhill at hill-a.ch; Baudouin Schombe; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:44 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Jeremy, > > I think the more useful way forward than engaging in these types of slanging matches is to begin working towards effective accountable democratic governance structures and modalities for the age of the Internet. By my scoring, you are the only one doing the slanging. If you had experience in the "classical" MSism, you would understand that there are effective accountability mechanisms in the "classical" regimes. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 24 10:16:27 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:46:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <1494270a940.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> <1494270a940.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <544A5F3B.8040606@itforchange.net> On Friday 24 October 2014 07:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Does that mean 'people who step up to do real work'? That would be > stakeholders. > > There are other steakholders who don't have any sweat or other equity > invested in a process but still demand a stake.. > All In fact, the above is a very good, if somewhat inadvertent, description of the neolib approach to governance that the IG style multistakeholder- ism embodies. Those who 'really contribute' - read, the rich and the able - get to vote, and the free riders - read, the poor and the unwashed - do not count... One obviously cannot directly say in this age that rich will vote and control governance and poor do not deserve a role or a vote... Instead of speaking of their poverty, it is their inabilities that get spoken of (which is considered the cause of their poverty). And if those who do not have the 'ability' are given a role in governance, they will only use to extract what is deserving not theirs. This is social darwinism, a well known doctrine of neolibs. parminder > > On 24 October 2014 9:51:53 am "michael gurstein" > wrote: > >> 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 >> / 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”. >> >> 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 >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 24 10:20:11 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:20:11 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544A5DC9.3030706@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> <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> <1494270a940.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <544A5DC9.3030706@gmail.com> Message-ID: <14942876590.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I know more than one activist who makes very little money or even loses money supporting their causes. And still contribute productively. As opposed to those that simply play divisive politics as opposed to providing constructive policy input in policy processes, or on the other side, contributing on the ground, grassroots work to mitigate disease, infringement of gender rights, online crime, etc. If that is neo liberalism I am proud to be a neo liberal. To appropriately reword a certain other cant phrase, steakholders are 'regressives' for they push any progress or cause far back rather than advance it. The process by itself gets umm.. left behind in all the infighting. On 24 October 2014 10:10:27 am parminder wrote: > > On Friday 24 October 2014 07:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > Does that mean 'people who step up to do real work'? That would be > > stakeholders. > > > > There are other steakholders who don't have any sweat or other equity > > invested in a process but still demand a stake.. > > > > All > > In fact, the above is a very good, if somewhat inadvertent, description > of the neolib approach to governance that the IG style MS ism embodies. > > Those who 'really contribute' - read, the rich and the able - get to > vote, and the free riders - read, the poor and the unwashed - do not > count... One obviously cannot directly say in this age that rich will > vote and control governance and poor do not deserve a role or a vote... > Instead of speaking of their poverty, it is their inabilities that get > spoken of (which is considered the cause of their poverty). And if those > who do not have the 'ability' are given a role in governance, they will > only use to extract what is deserving not theirs. This is social > darwinism, a well known doctrine of neolibs. > > parminder > > > On 24 October 2014 9:51:53 am "michael gurstein" > > wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> / 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”. > >> > >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 10:21:15 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:21:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@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> Message-ID: 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 * 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”. > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 10:32:36 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 07:32:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] 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> Message-ID: <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> 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 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”. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 24 10:46:35 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:46:35 -0400 Subject: Flamewars Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <54051414160988@webcorp02e.yandex-team.ru> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> <1494270a940.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <544A5DC9.3030706@gmail.com> <54051414160988@webcorp02e.yandex-team.ru> Message-ID: <149429f8170.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I am absolutely glad to not continue a discussion on these lines. On the ground and reasoned policy discussions on this list get increasingly rare when terms like neo liberal are bandied around, a distressing repurposing of the word liberal and all that it stands for, but I digress.. On 24 October 2014 10:30:01 am chaals at yandex-team.ru wrote: > Hi, >   > This by now pretty unedifying discussion about the finer theoretical points > of different approaches to democracy seems to have outlived its usefulness > to this group. >   > It takes a certain kind of stubbornness not to recognise that there are > extremely serious limitations to the capacity of a "multi-stakeholder > approach" to be guaranteed to represent all the people. But then, that > pretty much follows from Arrow's theorem, along with the fact that there > are equally problems any other approach. >   > We could argue about whether the model chosen for this group is the right > one, if there were some alternative proposal. Otherwise, I'd love to see > discussions related to some concrete proposal related to ensuring or > improving the way that Internet governance supports improved Human Rights. >   > (Yes, this is also what a "neo-liberal" would reply if they wanted to shut > down a discussion they found uncomfortable. Unfortunately, there is no a > priori way to determine whether my motivation is to spend my time doing > useful stuff, or to use any rhetorical trick available to further my hidden > agenda. So I'll just go with calling it like I see it). >   > cheers >   > -- > Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex > chaals at yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com >   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Oct 24 10:52:04 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:52:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@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> Message-ID: <14942a48a80.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> 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 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”. > > 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 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 11:08:47 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:08:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <14942a48a80.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> 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> Message-ID: <028701cfef9c$69dab030$3d901090$@gmail.com> 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. 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. Siva went on to suggest that MSism is the next stage beyond democracy an even stronger position – 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. Civil Society of course has traditionally (classically) supported democracy and the broadest base of participation in the structures and operations of governance. 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. 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 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”. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 11:10:44 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:10:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@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> Message-ID: 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. Sorry it may not serve your purposes of how and when you'd like to engage people. But I'm sorry, you shouldn't draw any particular conclusions from it other than what you care to believe. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:32 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 * 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”. > > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 24 11:12:35 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:42:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> <5447E72E.3040606@itforchange.net> <5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <544A6C63.2050406@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:07 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Dear Parminder, > > I am a bit amazed that you first make a point on how we should > substantively discuss issues, whereas you post this polemic directly > after. Dear Niels Rather than just dismissing it as a polemic I will encourage you to attentively read Chehadi's presentation of the global IG model that the dominant forces are pushing, and put forward some real arguments as to how the positions that many civil society groups are taking, including through the referred bestbits statement, do not simply further that particular IG model. I am happy to do a focussed discussion on this subject, > > It's perhaps slightly ironic that some of the people that you accuse > of pushing the neo-liberal model were exactly the ones at ICANN51 in > LA pushing for a human rights mechanism within ICANN. What mechanism is that? And does it include cultural rights of people whereby generic words of any language, like 'book' and 'beauty' cannot be privatised through closed generics class of domain name allocations. Again, happy to further explore this issue. > > I am surprised that you see discussing issues of content and privacy > at the ITU a part of evolving democratic governance. The ITU is not > nearly transparent enough for this to be an appropriate venue to > discuss this. Ok, I think you perhaps came into this discussion late. This has been going on for years now. Let me tell you, I myself convinced the delegates of a very good number of developing countries that instead of taking all these issues to the ITU, it is in their interest to seek a rather open, transparent and participative new UN based body for these purposes, which takes from the best global models available in this area. And this model was OECD's Internet policy making body, plus an organic connection to the UN IGF... I am speaking of India's UN - Committee on Internet-related Policies (CIRP) proposal (which was developed from an earlier public proposal made by my organisation) . I did a lot of work in this area, to develop latent support among many developing country delegated who were otherwise intent to sticking to the ITU... (In fact I even met Toure about it!) But then, what reception did that open and participative model of UN CIRP get from this same civil society, which now wants openness and participative- ness. Let me not begin on that, but you perhaps know.... So, now after rejecting more open, transparent and participative models, to blame ITU for not being these all things, and argue that *therefore* it should not do Internet policy is , excuse me to say, more than a bit disingenuous. > Surveillance is not just an attack on infrastructure, it > is a serious interference with the human right to privacy. Yes, absolutely... And more than that, mass surveillance is a new means of pervasive social, economic, political and cultural control, in ways which have still not even been fully conceptualised yet. And precisely for these reasons, something needs to be done urgently about it. I dont see anything less that a treaty that can reign in - at least normatively - the conduct of states being adequate to the purpose. Of course this in addition to other solutions. And we need the solutions NOW... You are raising a concern, but that means nothing unless you are ready to propose a plausible solution going forward. What is your proposal? Let US gov and companies rule the Internet? If not, what can put brakes on their power? These are the real issue. Just to be always saying, No, I dont like this institution and also I dont like that one, takes us nowhere (but the status quo). I am happy for civil society to seek new forums and new institutions (of course, not those who would give google the same right as governments) but if these are not forthcoming, I will work with the possibilities we have, and the ITU comes nearest to possibility we have at hand. > The ITU has > not got sufficient competence when it comes to human rights. All UN bodies are bound by human rights. But then we also have specific sectoral bodies with sectoral competencies... Can WTO, WIPO, even UNESCO , UNDP, UNEP, be called human rights experts, in the way in which the HR Council is ..... > Discussing privacy violations and surveillance should start with the > UN Human Rights Council. Niels, HRC is a human rights remedial mechanisms... All our countries have it. Such HR mechanisms are immensely important, but they do not replace sectoral policy bodies... Cyber security, IP based communication paradigm, and so on, need sectoral competence and focus... HR Councils cannot run the world... But they are remedial (and HR formulating) mechanisms which come into play when they need to. Lets not mix things. Sectoral norms, principles and policy making is a different thing than HR, while , definitionally, all policies have to be informed by HR (as contitutional principles of a polity) > > Saying that the ITU is not the right platform to discuss this is not > at all the same thing as saying that this issue should be left to the > market or the US government (or five/nine-eyes for that matter). If it isnt, then please tell me who is going to reign in these biggest powers on the global Internet today... I am ready to work with your solution, as far as there is something plausible on the table. I am serious, please put forward your proposals. And I have been asking this from many CS players for years. Of course, if there are no positive proposals, one would be justified in concluding that one is *largely* content with the status quo.. Or at least considers the cost of suggesting real changes more than of staying with the status quo. That is what I mean by being content with the status quo. Again, if you are not for leaving things to the market and US gov, then who? Please be explicit, with as much detail as possible. > And I > would even say that it is an deliberate misrepresentation that does > not help the substantive discussion, Since you accuse me of deliberate mis- representation, let me speak freely as well . I think it is dis-honest to say no, *not this* whenever a real proposal comes on the table (CIRP, ITU...) but still insist that no I am not for status quo... Further, it is hypocritical to work with for instance policy making mechanisms of OECD, CoE, etc and then call any proposal that are similarly structured but involves all governments as belonging to the side of the dark forces out to control the Internet. > and the deep thinking that is > indeed needed, any further. Over the last 10 years we have been 'thinking' and discussing, the global Internet has moved from a relatively innocent and egalitarian artefact to something completely different, and people are really really worried about the directions it is moving in. At some point, we need to 'do something' as well'. Now is that time. parminder > > Best, > > Niels > > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > On 10/22/2014 07:19 PM, parminder wrote: >> And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what >> a neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just >> read the below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out >> rather well >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operations-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/ >> >> >> >> It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward. >> There can simply be no doubt in it. >> >> And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at >> this crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even >> painfully slow) evolving democratic governance of our collective >> global affairs including the Internet, or shifting over to >> neoliberal governance by the elite.. And if they side with this >> structural shift to neolib governance today, it will be for keeps. >> We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions. At >> the very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of >> us. >> >> parminder >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Further to Parminder’s comments below. >>> >>> I recently published a blogpost >>> >>> >>> > (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic >>> model of “governance by and for the people” is in direct >>> conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of >>> “governance by and for stakeholders”. >>> >>> I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in >>> such a way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a >>> value in simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation >>> that often masks fundamental positions and values. >>> >>> I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue >>> more broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a >>> democratic approach to governance including in areas as central >>> to our experience, well-being and future as the Internet and >>> those who would give this governance over to decision making by >>> those with specific “interests/stakes” in the outcome (and where >>> the broad public interest if represented at all would be only one >>> among many such competing “stakes”) is a fundamental one. >>> >>> It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of >>> “civil society” and others opting for a position that does not >>> support democracy and democratic governance however and in what >>> manner that might be achieved. >>> >>> M >>> >>> *From:*IRP >>> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM >>> *To:* Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch *Cc:* >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >>> forum at justnetcoalition.org *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - >>> Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU >>> Plenipot joint recommendations >>> >>> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>> >>> Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware >>> that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons >>> for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we >>> fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has >>> expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the >>> Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable. >>> >>> In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your >>> criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an >>> entirely accurate reading of its content: >>> >>> - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free >>> markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should >>> retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates >>> where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal >>> service and promote robust competition." The drafters include >>> organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for >>> stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) >>> level. >>> >>> - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should >>> take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes >>> the "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the >>> global governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important >>> role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination >>> and collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and >>> multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we >>> think are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge >>> challenges ahead. >>> >>> That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" >>> was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as >>> proposed by Jeanette. >>> >>> I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views >>> can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort >>> to find the common ground between differing positions. >>> >>> >>> Dear Anne >>> >>> Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage >>> on this discussion. But my present email will only make one >>> point, about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which >>> your email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that >>> manner, but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political >>> criticism in these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean >>> personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must >>> recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction >>> and submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the >>> world they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the >>> realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who >>> really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on >>> all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a >>> political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil >>> society space, as in the conventional political space. However, >>> for instance in India, which has a rather high level of >>> professional in traditional political space, at least at the >>> national level, political personalities are able to be scathing >>> and unsparing in terms of their political positions and counter >>> positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil >>> or any such thing. >>> >>> I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this >>> because many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you >>> come from a core political civil society background, and so I an >>> really not talking about you.) I also say it because I and people >>> that I work with feel that the present position that is being >>> proposed on the BestBits platform a major political statement >>> that we find extremely problematic and something that sets a >>> solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging >>> Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the >>> world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and social >>> justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner >>> stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest >>> it, with all means at our disposal. >>> >>> I will separately respond to some substantive points in your >>> above email. >>> >>> best regards parminder >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anne >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill >> > wrote: >>> >>> I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his >>> comments. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> -----Original Message----- *From:* Forum >>> [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org >>> ]*On Behalf Of >>> *parminder *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 *To:* >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> ; >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ; >>> forum at justnetcoalition.org ; >>> IRP *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 >>> hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >>> >>> >>> I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in >>> detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It >>> says yes there are many very important global Internet policy >>> issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them up, but >>> tells us nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a >>> recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free >>> world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the >>> documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its >>> Global Redesign Initiative). >>> >>> I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important >>> Internet policy issues at the global level or some other >>> democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable >>> that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows >>> those who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly >>> the US based economic and political establishment, to carry on >>> consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an >>> expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and >>> therefore I strongly oppose it. >>> >>> To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); >>> >>> Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from >>> developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies >>> unregulated global market models for global Internet >>> inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand of >>> all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the >>> WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the >>> main 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that >>> issue by declaring that such things be best left to free markets, >>> with no regulatory framework, or even a normative/ principles >>> framework. In any case, it is not clear how even working on the >>> interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from the WSIS >>> is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not >>> one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a >>> mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks that the >>> proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask for the >>> closing down of the ITU. >>> >>> Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards >>> a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world >>> post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's >>> colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on >>> the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is >>> concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of >>> the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply >>> given up and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? >>> Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of? >>> Civil society must answer these questions. >>> >>> The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the >>> UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. >>> That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first >>> committee’s work is much less participative (of other >>> stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale >>> here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see >>> when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but >>> right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first >>> committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber >>> security treaty will require the expertise of ITU which is the >>> agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply >>> obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks of a >>> movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. >>> Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly >>> signing on this rather dangerous statement. >>> >>> The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber >>> security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts >>> and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on >>> the area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just >>> give up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet >>> governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part >>> of a process towards development of global principles and >>> agreements and not a as a pre condition of them. This is >>> universally known. One can understand why US wants to protect the >>> status quo, but why civil society? >>> >>> Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet >>> power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you >>> where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will >>> simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... >>> >>> Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of >>> all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage >>> is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global >>> stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free >>> reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at >>> plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific >>> Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's >>> news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to >>> regulate global IP TV transmissions). >>> >>> Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule >>> of the economically and politically powerful... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>> >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to >>> try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. >>> We produced the open letter on transparency and participation in >>> the Plenipot process itself, which many of you signed (thank >>> you!). Our second and harder task was to develop positions on >>> some of the most important substantive issues before the >>> conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 >>> page lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the >>> next 24 hours at: >>> >>> *http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes* >>> >>> The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference >>> proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both >>> because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and because >>> many Member States submitted their proposals quite late in the >>> day. As a result, our drafting process has taken us hard up >>> against the start of the Plenipot itself. >>> >>> It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, >>> so we are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If >>> however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" >>> issue that prevents them from signing on, they should email me >>> personally in the next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve >>> this issue, and I will consult the other members of the ITU fluid >>> working group on whether to accept this edit. >>> >>> Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not >>> presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on >>> behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of the >>> specific organisations endorsing. >>> >>> If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send >>> your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org >>> ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) >>> tomorrow, 21 Oct. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Anne >>> >>> -- Anne Jellema >>> >>> CEO >>> >>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>> >>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>> >>> @afjellema >>> >>> *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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Forum mailing >>> list Forum at justnetcoalition.org >>> >>> http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > - -- >>> Anne Jellema >>> >>> CEO >>> >>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >>> >>> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >>> >>> @afjellema >>> >>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >>> | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ 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 >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUR+s/AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpBSMH/0PR5KgEQ1rHeUZTUO7b3YWi > kvYktLQp3oIwMwepxgahmNLZww8vWE3P70z/gLyNc7ZG0JlO2o0W6hgyRlpZzkWk > 4t9u1ryOZ/CXWYLd53zQ13bPZuDeqAud3hheGIsozCdGkbXZpvMuznc1d+S2mTBC > fwnqggGTUfpRmcIti5gR+rUmwtqFnKALz1+GfPyqBxvt8IeqvZGTRzT5kg/qxj0e > wmuYgMBqicTfb42b2McAT5SCsm12JXhyM9EpHLZefcgClbh8VsVA/LqOwnbMLVgy > 1jLTLGeGxDwmWrerYKVlbNhaeTYZdM7DA7Rp3miKirMoe7kBbTDexEkM2Mw2KWM= > =b/3V > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 11:15:32 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:15:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@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> Message-ID: No, you may not. Just because no one is keen to keep rebutting all your "slanging" it doesn't mean that we all agree with you. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:59 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 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”. > > 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 > -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 11:27:40 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 03:27:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] 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> Message-ID: The ecosystem is vast and diverse. Just as in a natural habitat, you would expect shrubs to be different to trees, each is different but all have unique functions. The current internet ecosystem has diverse components, some like UN agencies and other regional intergovernmental agencies that have their own mechanisms and prescribed role to play. One can advocate increasing accountability and transparency in the inclusion of diverse voices which we are now seeing in various intergovernmental processes. Then there are institutions which are not intergovernmental but multistakeholder and are organic in nature. These are far less bureaucratic and are the way they are to ensure that innovation is preserved. *Paradigm 1 *sees the tension and conflict between intergovernmental versus multistakeholder *Paradigm 2* sees that institutions all differ and can co-exist. I subscribe to Paradigm 2. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dgolumbia at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 11:27:37 2014 From: dgolumbia at gmail.com (David Golumbia) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:27:37 -0400 Subject: Flamewars Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <149429f8170.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> <1494270a940.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <544A5DC9.3030706@gmail.com> <54051414160988@webcorp02e.yandex-team.ru> <149429f8170.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: requests to end discussion about the nature of democracy in the name of democracy (or some successor form of meaningfully representative and human-rights-preserving form of governance) are more than a little ironic, given the centrality of discussion and debate to the justification for "free speech" that is supposed to be one of the most important pillars of democratic governance. "neoliberal" IS a distressing repurposing of the word liberal and all it stands for, but this repurposing was done by the architects of neoliberalism, on purpose. (it refers to "liberalism" in the utilitarian constructions of writers like JS Mill, and to a lesser extent Locke and some others). it is not meant to refer to "liberal" politics today (UK Labour party, US Democratic party), or to a generally "liberal" outlook as that has come to be understood. It has a thick, thorough, detailed body of research explaining its history and its ideas, in particular in the work of Philip Mirowski, Dieter Plehwe, Jedidiah Purdy, David Harvey, and others (to say nothing of the work of those who coined the term and its surrounding concepts, like FA Hayek, L. von Mises, M. Friedman, and quite a few others). The doctrine they describe in these works is of great concern when one looks at the rhetoric and policy suggestions surrounding many of the ideas of MSism. I will be happy to provide more detailed references off-list (or on-list, if anybody wants that). Distinctions between those who "do something" and those who "just want to talk"--those who have a "stake" (when we are talking about governance that affects everyone, implicitly and explicitly) and those who don't--are themselves a troubling part of the kinds of politics people like Mirowski analyze at great length, and they have a deep and disturbing political history. They are also rampant in discussions of technology today, especially among those in the industry. I believe they are deeply pernicious. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I am absolutely glad to not continue a discussion on these lines. On > the ground and reasoned policy discussions on this list get increasingly > rare when terms like neo liberal are bandied around, a distressing > repurposing of the word liberal and all that it stands for, but I digress.. > > On 24 October 2014 10:30:01 am chaals at yandex-team.ru wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This by now pretty unedifying discussion about the finer theoretical >> points of different approaches to democracy seems to have outlived its >> usefulness to this group. >> >> It takes a certain kind of stubbornness not to recognise that there are >> extremely serious limitations to the capacity of a "multi-stakeholder >> approach" to be guaranteed to represent all the people. But then, that >> pretty much follows from Arrow's theorem, along with the fact that there >> are equally problems any other approach. >> >> We could argue about whether the model chosen for this group is the right >> one, if there were some alternative proposal. Otherwise, I'd love to see >> discussions related to some concrete proposal related to ensuring or >> improving the way that Internet governance supports improved Human Rights. >> >> (Yes, this is also what a "neo-liberal" would reply if they wanted to >> shut down a discussion they found uncomfortable. Unfortunately, there is no >> a priori way to determine whether my motivation is to spend my time doing >> useful stuff, or to use any rhetorical trick available to further my hidden >> agenda. So I'll just go with calling it like I see it). >> >> cheers >> >> -- >> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex >> chaals at yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- David Golumbia dgolumbia at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 11:30:22 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:30:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] 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> Message-ID: <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> It is interesting to see that those who are amongst the most vocal and public advocates for MSism are also those who refuse to actually indicate what they mean by MSism. M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 8:11 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 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. Sorry it may not serve your purposes of how and when you'd like to engage people. But I'm sorry, you shouldn't draw any particular conclusions from it other than what you care to believe. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:32 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 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”. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 24 11:43:52 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:43:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@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> Message-ID: Why not try continuing the discussion, but temporarily banning the use of the word "multistakeholderism" and all of its related terms? This would involve more words, more typing, more time reading, but would save time in the long run because each contributor to the discussion would be forced to describe exactly what he/she is talking about, and the discussion itself would be clarified. (Other possible candidates for the temporary ban are democracy and liberalism/ neo-liberalism) Deirdre On 24 October 2014 11:30, michael gurstein wrote: > It is interesting to see that those who are amongst the most vocal and > public advocates for MSism are also those who refuse to actually indicate > what they mean by MSism. > > > > M > > > > *From:* Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 8:11 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 > > > > 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. Sorry it may not serve your > purposes of how and when you'd like to engage people. But I'm sorry, you > shouldn't draw any particular conclusions from it other than what you care > to believe. > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:32 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 * 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”. > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- “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 isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 12:29:37 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:59:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] 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: Dear Michael Gurstein, Throughout history, when any revolution, mild or bloody, replaced an injustice, often it was by another (at inception or on deterioration). Russian Revolution displaced Dr.Zhivago's and the French Revolution guillotined a Sydney Carton or two. Communism and Socialism proved to evolve to bring up its own classes of elites, Democracy captivated the imagination of the common man for the past 2000 years, but little does the common man realizes that he has no role in the rule, except for his vote to elect the ones who rule. One of the ills of Democracy is that of skewed justice owing to the influence exercised by Interest of Lobby groups, formal and informal, visible and invisible. What is charming about Multistakeholderism is that it recognizes multiple interests and that the interests are visible and seated around the table, with a certain attempt to balance the interests of one another. This way, Multi-stakeholderism addresses one of the unspoken ills of Democracy. And in tiers, the whole world participates ( for e.g a tier on top with Participants in a Working Group, another tier of subscribers to a mailing list and yet another tier of Public Comments in the Public Comment + News or wider Blog space. I am not actually rejecting Democracy, but of the opinion that the inevitable gaps in Democracy could be effectively filled by the MultiStakeholder model, which could be viewed as, - forgive me for the pun - Enhanced Democracy ? Sivasubramanian M ​.​ On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:38 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. > > > > 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. > > > > Siva went on to suggest that MSism is the next stage beyond democracy an > even stronger position – 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. > > > > Civil Society of course has traditionally (classically) supported > democracy and the broadest base of participation in the structures and > operations of governance. 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. > > > > 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 * 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”. > > 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 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 24 12:35:12 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:35:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] 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> Message-ID: <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> On 24/10/2014 8:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Why not try continuing the discussion, but temporarily banning the use > of the word "multistakeholderism" and all of its related terms? This > would involve more words, more typing, more time reading, but would > save time in the long run because each contributor to the discussion > would be forced to describe exactly what he/she is talking about, and > the discussion itself would be clarified. > (Other possible candidates for the temporary ban are democracy and > liberalism/ neo-liberalism) If Michael will stop inaccurately appending "(governance by self-selected elites)" after every mention of multi-stakeholderism, then I'll stop saying "so-called democracy (statism)". ;-) -- 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 -------------- 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 dgolumbia at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 13:01:44 2014 From: dgolumbia at gmail.com (David Golumbia) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:01:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> 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> Message-ID: clearly "statism" and "democracy" are not identical; the world is full of states that implement no form of democratic governance. the opposite of statism, as I understand the term, is anarchism. the most determined proponent of anti-statism in recent times is Murray Rothbard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-statism. is that how you are using the term? On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I'll stop saying "so-called democracy (statism)". ;-) > > -- David Golumbia dgolumbia at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 24 14:01:43 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:01:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> 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> Message-ID: <20141024200143.169941bd@quill> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:35:12 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If Michael will stop inaccurately appending "(governance by > self-selected elites)" after every mention of multi-stakeholderism, Are there any credible models of multistakeholder governance which do not put a large part of the governance power into the hands of a self-selected elite? > then I'll stop saying "so-called democracy (statism)". ;-) Are there any credible models of democracy which are not state-based? (Here I mean the term “state-based” in a broad sense, in which for example the EU, although not a state, is included as a state-based entity.) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 14:03:39 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:03:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> 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> Message-ID: <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> Jeremy, 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! And it’s not as though this is an inconsequential issue—it involves replacing Democracy as the aspirational model of governance that has been in place for several thousand years and has captured the loyalty, passion and aspirations of millions of people worldwide—take a look at what is happening right today in Hong Kong--with a will-o’-the-wisp undefined gleam in someone’s eye whose provenance seems to be the corporate elite dominated World Economic Forum and whose major cheerleaders appear to be the completely public interest seeking US State Department. As for my definition of MSism as governance by a self-selected elite, it is based on my experience and analysis as extensively documented in my blog (and as confirmed by several of the contributors to this thread). I’ll be pleased to be persuaded otherwise as to this definition but simply rejecting it without argument is equally trivial. BTW, I’m still waiting for any of the distinguished IG CS leaders to publicly avow or disavow themselves of either Siva’s notion that MSism is an evolutionary “replacement?” for democracy or Suresh’s definition of “stakeholder” as consisting of those with a “stake” i.e. those who have actively contributed to the object of the governance process—as defined of course by the beneficiaries of these processes. (This it might not be noted and not incidentally is directly parallel to the argument currently being made against democratic governance in Hong Kong by C.J. Leung on behalf of the ruling cadres of the PRC). Silence, even by those who insist on being silent in their silence, is a very telling and significant statement in a context such as this one. What it says is that we can’t or don’t need to give a definition—we can proceed without one because we have power, wealth and influence on our side—no one can make us, or stop us and ultimately it doesn’t matter what you or anyone think or do—MSism is, as the Queen of Hearts said, whatever we choose it to mean and if you don’t like it well… M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 9:35 AM To: 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 8:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Why not try continuing the discussion, but temporarily banning the use > of the word "multistakeholderism" and all of its related terms? This > would involve more words, more typing, more time reading, but would > save time in the long run because each contributor to the discussion > would be forced to describe exactly what he/she is talking about, and > the discussion itself would be clarified. > (Other possible candidates for the temporary ban are democracy and > liberalism/ neo-liberalism) If Michael will stop inaccurately appending "(governance by self-selected elites)" after every mention of multi-stakeholderism, then I'll stop saying "so-called democracy (statism)". ;-) -- 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 jmalcolm at eff.org Fri Oct 24 14:13:17 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:13:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@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> Message-ID: <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> 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 :: -------------- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 14:19:42 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:19:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> 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> Message-ID: <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> 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”. 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 :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 15:35:31 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:05:31 +0530 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: 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Oct 24 15:48:18 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 06:48:18 +1100 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] 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> Message-ID: <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> Thanks for posting that Gabrielle. I think it puts clearly why relying on traditional fora of nation states (aka democracy in some peoples language) is problematic. There are enough examples below to cause significant concern for anyone who wants civil society participation. I think the article makes a telling point when it says " I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over." I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these problems. However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it comes to making progress on important matters, nor is its inclusiveness brilliant. As Charles Nevile put it on another list, "It takes a certain kind of stubbornness not to recognise that there are extremely serious limitations to the capacity of a "multi-stakeholder approach" to be guaranteed to represent all the people". So in my mind, we are comparing Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Particularly when the real power of corporations to influence (and change) so called democratic governments is take into account. When we move beyond that we might be able to develop solutions. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Gabrielle Guillemin Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 10:27 PM To: michael gurstein ; 'Avri Doria' ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Hi all, I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association. I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/ Best, Gabrielle Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.” The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people. A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post. Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum a “ceremonial event”. It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states. On October 28, I will present a report to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input. To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy. I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over. As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say. First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement. Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily. The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network, has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India. Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli, a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care. Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved. Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened. There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies at their events altogether. No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf. It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either. The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings. When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states. Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses. Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR on Twitter. ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57 To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations 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 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”. 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Oct 24 15:49:41 2014 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:49:41 -0400 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: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 16:05:50 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:35:50 +0530 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: 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 > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri Oct 24 16:15:05 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 22:15:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] 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: I think that Avri's definition remains Avri's idealistic view of a digital Wonderland that she is by the same token contributing to keep at bay from any form of democratic thinking with such non sense (no offense Avri!): - Indeed that definition doesn't match any reality. And if it did that would not just mean that a few of us are either blind or stupid - that could still be the case, I must admit!- but that would mean that such a so-called Participatory MSistic democracy has been best used by a few big players (one country with its public structure and private champions, and a few other old gentle followers such as Sweden, the UK, Japan and other Lex Americana wannabe, claiming that not one single state should had final cut over the Internet and its major untold public policy decisions made by geeks and jerks). What we can observe when looking at the "participatory MS democracy" result is proof that we are not facing a participatory democracy process. Simply a pure plutocratic exercise. How come that, since 1998 when the US took away from Postel the overall management of the root, the Internet is under the authority of a contract edited by the US gov, still valid to this day. - Is this flawed definition related to a past, present or future MS? Again we do not see how this MS understanding can deliver any single step forward for a better and more balanced Internet governance. MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music. Who pays the musicians... - What is so brilliant with MS is that whatever the number of participants, IG keeps being a US toy for its economic benefit, first and foremost. So yes, one can say that it allows a lot of people (a thousand?) to have the impression of being part of the process, it still means nothing in terms of representativity, or real change. An effective participation of the same old tribe, passing the mic to one another, doesn't equate to an efficient debate (having consequences). It is not difficult to understand how biased is the IG debate when we look at which US entities are putting money into that fora. ISOC, ICANN and the usual suspects from the private sector. IGF, ITU... have none. So whatever interest one can have in all of that brownian world, the reality of the current MS is still a misery, and a prejudice to the fundamental ideal of democracy. Le 24 oct. 2014 à 20:19, michael gurstein a écrit : > 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”. > > 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: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Oct 24 16:33:31 2014 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:33:31 -0400 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: <2F674E13-B5F2-44D5-BC68-B955E1E91B0D@post.harvard.edu> On Oct 24, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > 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. So pleased that - in your almighty wisdom ...- you will decide what is 'sufficient.' Oh, wait a minute, 70 million are listening - that is news. Or, more to the point, a fantasy. Really? You want to assert such a thing in serious dialog? Right now, as pivotal decisions are being made in Busan, we can have a test of the possibilities. How many do you imagine are actually tuned in to the live stream? actual count? > 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. Which, actually, we have been doing for the last few hundred years, in the modern history of democracy. We just didn't think to give it a fancy name. Nor, did we corrupt this - invaluable, for real democracy - involvement of the public, by then ceding power only to the powerful. As MSist of the day today have done. > > 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. That is most certainly true. And you think the sorts of goings-on, on these lists, in IGF, etc, have solved those problems, any problems? Ian Peter has just noted - using only _my_ words now - how much failure there has been, all around. And, goodness knows, we do not need a perverted MS process that actually only empowers the powerful further. > 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 Careful of the CJ Leung approach, so far carefully avoided in conversation here. Any real, decent governance starts with the disenfranchised - not the powerful. Myself, I must note. I will carry on conversation that is productive. But that which is circular and so fails to advance understanding only obfuscates. Of course, mileage may vary. Best regards, David > > > > 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: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Oct 24 16:50:37 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:50:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@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> Message-ID: <14943c20870.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Comparing a working stake in a process to a rubber stamp oligarchy form of government is so wrong that I can't quite react any further to this, but anyway.. On 24 October 2014 3:14:08 pm "michael gurstein" wrote: > Jeremy, > > > > 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! > > > > And it’s not as though this is an inconsequential issue—it involves > replacing Democracy as the aspirational model of governance that has been > in place for several thousand years and has captured the loyalty, passion > and aspirations of millions of people worldwide—take a look at what is > happening right today in Hong Kong--with a will-o’-the-wisp undefined gleam > in someone’s eye whose provenance seems to be the corporate elite dominated > World Economic Forum and whose major cheerleaders appear to be the > completely public interest seeking US State Department. > > > > As for my definition of MSism as governance by a self-selected elite, it is > based on my experience and analysis as extensively documented in my blog > (and as confirmed by several of the contributors to this thread). I’ll be > pleased to be persuaded otherwise as to this definition but simply > rejecting it without argument is equally trivial. > > > > BTW, I’m still waiting for any of the distinguished IG CS leaders to > publicly avow or disavow themselves of either Siva’s notion that MSism is > an evolutionary “replacement?” for democracy or Suresh’s definition of > “stakeholder” as consisting of those with a “stake” i.e. those who have > actively contributed to the object of the governance process—as defined of > course by the beneficiaries of these processes. (This it might not be > noted and not incidentally is directly parallel to the argument currently > being made against democratic governance in Hong Kong by C.J. Leung on > behalf of the ruling cadres of the PRC). > > > > Silence, even by those who insist on being silent in their silence, is a > very telling and significant statement in a context such as this one. What > it says is that we can’t or don’t need to give a definition—we can proceed > without one because we have power, wealth and influence on our side—no one > can make us, or stop us and ultimately it doesn’t matter what you or anyone > think or do—MSism is, as the Queen of Hearts said, whatever we choose it to > mean and if you don’t like it well… > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 9:35 AM > To: 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 8:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > Why not try continuing the discussion, but temporarily banning the use > > > of the word "multistakeholderism" and all of its related terms? This > > > would involve more words, more typing, more time reading, but would > > > save time in the long run because each contributor to the discussion > > > would be forced to describe exactly what he/she is talking about, and > > > the discussion itself would be clarified. > > > (Other possible candidates for the temporary ban are democracy and > > > liberalism/ neo-liberalism) > > > > If Michael will stop inaccurately appending "(governance by self-selected > elites)" after every mention of multi-stakeholderism, then I'll stop saying > "so-called democracy (statism)". ;-) > > > > -- > > 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 jmalcolm at eff.org Fri Oct 24 17:32:21 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:32:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org>,<038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> Message-ID: <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these > problems. However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it > comes to making progress on important matters, nor is its > inclusiveness brilliant. I agree, but the sweeping criticisms of the multi-stakeholder model that we hear from JNC members are directed at immature implementations of that model of which - here's the point - proponents of multi-stakeholderism have themselves been highly critical! They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Take a look, for example, at the latest Best Bits statement to the IGF, which is now open for endorsement (please do so if you agree) which reiterates criticisms of the IGF's implementation of the multi-stakeholder model that we have been repeating endlessly for almost a decade: bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/ The fact that these criticisms haven't been taken into account can't be attributed to civil society, and doesn't amount to grounds for abandoning the ideals behind multi-stakeholder governance just because they haven't yet been achieved. Their achievement will be the work of decades, not years. Finally, too much of this thread misconceives that multi-stakeholderism is not democratic if it doesn't represent all the people, and that if participants in multi-stakeholder processes are anything less then everybody, they are "elites". This reflects a very shallow conception of democracy, which for example excludes deliberative democratic practices where in which we attempt to include all affected /perspectives/, rather than all individuals. As noted above, this can and must be done better than it has been to date. But that is no basis for criticism of the political programme that underlies the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, which is really nothing more than to realise democratic principles on an international level where nation states are no longer an adequate fit. We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views here that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth there is on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their own list where they can advance their models of state-based ordering, while the rest of can work on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without harassment. -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 17:43:53 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:43:53 -0700 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: <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> 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 Of Sivasubramanian 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dgolumbia at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 18:09:44 2014 From: dgolumbia at gmail.com (David Golumbia) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:09:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> Message-ID: Since you did not answer my question the first time, and at least one other person has put it a slightly different way, and here you reference "state-based ordering" and "nation states are no longer an adequate fit," in both cases directly indicating that states should be bypassed, invalidated, or otherwise overcome, I feel it is fair to ask again: is it fair to say your political philosophy is anarchism? If so, which variety of anarchism? If not anarchism, which non-state philosophy is it? To whose political theory should we turn to understand this system in detail? And is this an official policy position of EFF? You are being very critical and dismissive of what you call "harassment" and "ingrained views," but I can't read your statements here without them entailing some kind of rejection of exactly the political forms to which many people who live in democracies are deeply committed. For example: most citizens of most democratic countries in the world today believe they have elected their governments and entrust them with the power to represent them *via* the state. The state is the clearest guarantor of the rights laid out in the UN Declaration on Human Rights. It seems a reasonable inference to suggest that the great majority of citizens in most (speaking loosely) democratic states would not consider the bypassing, invalidation, or overcoming of the state to be a welcome political development, especially if it is done by any bodies other than the elected governments they have put in place. At the very least, they would no doubt demand the right to vote on it and to subject it to whatever other tests political changes require in their respective states. Further, not putting such a choice before them would reject popular sovereignty in the most direct way, thus making it very hard to see the change as in any sense "democratic." I am asking informational questions in an earnest attempt to get a handle on who it is that has authorized or is pushing for what appears to be a clear rejection of values and principles that the great majority of people in the world would be very unlikely to give up (at least not easily), and what political system is being recommended to replace it. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > > I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these problems. > However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it comes to making > progress on important matters, nor is its inclusiveness brilliant. > > > I agree, but the sweeping criticisms of the multi-stakeholder model that > we hear from JNC members are directed at immature implementations of that > model of which - here's the point - proponents of multi-stakeholderism have > themselves been highly critical! > > They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these > implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention > this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will > keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said > that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in > multi-stakeholder Internet governance? > > Take a look, for example, at the latest Best Bits statement to the IGF, > which is now open for endorsement (please do so if you agree) which > reiterates criticisms of the IGF's implementation of the multi-stakeholder > model that we have been repeating endlessly for almost a decade: > > bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/ > > The fact that these criticisms haven't been taken into account can't be > attributed to civil society, and doesn't amount to grounds for abandoning > the ideals behind multi-stakeholder governance just because they haven't > yet been achieved. Their achievement will be the work of decades, not > years. > > Finally, too much of this thread misconceives that multi-stakeholderism is > not democratic if it doesn't represent all the people, and that if > participants in multi-stakeholder processes are anything less then > everybody, they are "elites". This reflects a very shallow conception of > democracy, which for example excludes deliberative democratic practices > where in which we attempt to include all affected *perspectives*, rather > than all individuals. > > As noted above, this can and must be done better than it has been to > date. But that is no basis for criticism of the political programme that > underlies the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, which is really > nothing more than to realise democratic principles on an international > level where nation states are no longer an adequate fit. > > We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views here > that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth there is > on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their own list where > they can advance their models of state-based ordering, while the rest of > can work on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without > harassment. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm 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: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- David Golumbia dgolumbia at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Oct 24 18:25:30 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:25:30 -0400 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: <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> 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 Of Sivasubramanian 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 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 24 20:38:34 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:38:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] 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> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> Message-ID: <544AF10A.5090209@eff.org> On 24/10/2014 3:09 pm, David Golumbia wrote: > Since you did not answer my question the first time, and at least one > other person has put it a slightly different way, and here you > reference "state-based ordering" and "nation states are no longer an > adequate fit," in both cases directly indicating that states should be > bypassed, invalidated, or otherwise overcome, I feel it is fair to ask > again: is it fair to say your political philosophy is anarchism? If > so, which variety of anarchism? If not anarchism, which non-state > philosophy is it? To whose political theory should we turn to > understand this system in detail? No it's not fair to say that at all. Since this is not an international relations or political science list I'm not going to go too far into the weeds, but it is almost a truism that for a variety of reasons nation states no longer possess either the legitimacy to claim, or the capacity to exercise, sole authority over global governance particularly in regimes (such as Internet governance) where public policy decisions have significant transnational impacts. This is not such an outlying position as you seem to suggest, and see further some resources below. > And is this an official policy position of EFF? EFF is a non-partisan digital civil liberties organisation. Individual staff may hold views across the political spectrum (probably including anarchism). Also, unless what I write is published on an EFF domain, it doesn't necessarily represent a cleared EFF position, even if I happen to be using my work email account because it relates to an area within the scope of my work. However see this: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/09/towards-internet-nation > I am asking informational questions in an earnest attempt to get a > handle on who it is that has authorized or is pushing for what appears > to be a clear rejection of values and principles that the great > majority of people in the world would be very unlikely to give up (at > least not easily), and what political system is being recommended to > replace it. Here is a partial chronological reading list to get you started (look for these on Google Books or in your library): * Rosenau, James N. and Czempiel, Ernst-Otto (eds). /Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics/ (1992) * Arend, Anthony Clark. /Legal Rules and International Society/ (1999) * Malcolm, Jeremy. /Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum/ (2008) * Drake, William J. and Wilson, Ernest J. (eds). /Governing Global Electronic Networks: International Perspectives on Policy and Power/ (2008) * Mathiason, John. /Internet Governance: The New Frontier of Global Institutions/ (2009) * Mueller, Milton. /Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance/ (2011) * Radu, Roxana, Chenou, Jean-Marie and Weber, Rolf H (eds). /The Evolution of Global Internet Governance: Principles and Policies in the Making/ (2014) * Brenner, Susan W. /Cyberthreats and the Decline of the Nation-State/ (2014) Many more references in the bibliographies of the above. -- 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 jmalcolm at eff.org Fri Oct 24 20:58:41 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:58:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544AF10A.5090209@eff.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> <544AF10A.5090209@eff.org> Message-ID: <544AF5C1.4000100@eff.org> On 24/10/2014 5:38 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> I am asking informational questions in an earnest attempt to get a >> handle on who it is that has authorized or is pushing for what >> appears to be a clear rejection of values and principles that the >> great majority of people in the world would be very unlikely to give >> up (at least not easily), and what political system is being >> recommended to replace it. Further, it's not as if these "great majority of people" have a choice. The Internet (and the world) is /already/ being governed by diverse institutions many of which have no connection with their elected representatives. So the choice is not between sticking with a well-established system or representative democracy or switching to an alternative called multi-stakeholderism, as you seem to be characterising it. On the contrary, it's a choice between continuing to submit to diverse mechanisms of ordering many of which are not state-based or democratic, or constructing new forms of representation that allow people, independently of their citizenship, to participate in global governance in ways that would otherwise be reserved to more powerful actors. Meanwhile the nation state will continue to play its role, but in global Internet governance it is not not an exclusive role. -- 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sat Oct 25 00:12:34 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 06:12:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] *** SPAM ***Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544AC1EE.2020906@acm.org> References: <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> <54! 4AC1EE.20 20906@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks Avri. The irony might lay somewhere else: it appears that your vision of a future (to-be-achieved) MSism tends to ignore a necessary critic of what MS was and still is. It also appears to start with the premise that any current form of classical representativity or democracy should be seen as non valid form to contribute to the future of Internet Governance, in order to switch from the current asymmetry to a so-called Participative MS Democratic form of Internet Governance. The irony is that everything that is related to classical representation, governmental actors, national or transnational law is considered as BAD for IG. This dogma - to exclude classical means of representativity or Democracy - is as radical as to refuse to listen to engineers, business, researchers, civil society who contribute directly or indirectly to IG. And to label the ones calling for respect of classical representativity or democracy "radical multilateralist" is simply unfair. When you look at all the institutions performing in the IG, irony is that the only ones with some global, transnational representativity and legitimacy are the UN ones, including the ITU. From ICANN, to IETF, ISOC or the WEF none of these are an inch close to legitimate or democratic standards. And I do not buy the idea that IETF's MSism could be the perfect example of an 'enhanced form of participative democracy", as David Froomkin has tried to convince himself of by explaining that IETF'sMSism was an Habermas compliant ultimate form of democratic governance. So to suggest that we could achieve a Participative MS Democratic model for IG by telling everyone that evil for IG emerges from bodies related to national, transnational, UN circles, is a clear form of democratic bashing. Telling us like Milton does, that we should aim at a global citizenry that would be the perfect level of representativity for IG is pretty "charming", but we, our children, grand children, grand grand children will probably never see any such level of citizenry. We might see ourselves as citizen of the World, the global community of citizen still has no legal, democratic fabric and existence. Victor Hugo called for the United Sates of Europe back in the nineteen century and we are still centuries away from it. So between the classical existing frames of representativity (and legitimacy) and the utopian (without topos) Interland you tend to call for, one can see that, in the meantime, a few are still holding the strings of IG for their benefits, having no consideration for social justice, fair digital development for all... To transform the current asymmetry means to root our fundamental approach and reflection is "simple" democratic principles. Not in vague, undefined, floating definitions. This only helps to maintain the unfair setting of power in IG. Do we know what is Democracy? Yes. Can we enhance it? Probably, yes. Do we know what is "Enhanced Democracy"? I do not see what it is, would be somehow afraid to understand that it is a form of democracy that works better than democracy: most people explaining us that Nations, including Democracies are unable to perform their collective duty, ranging from Nicolas Berggruen and its digital friends in San Francisco to radical MSists, including Jeremy : "October 25, 2014 : it is almost a truism that for a variety of reasons nation states no longer possess either the legitimacy to claim, or the capacity to exercise, sole authority over global governance particularly in regimes (such as Internet governance) where public policy decisions have significant transnational impacts." I am not a pro apprenti-sorcier. By constantly rejecting the classical elements/achievements/principles of our political life and societies, one is feeding the beast that is rejecting any form of progress for IG in terms of participation, inclusiveness at the citizen level, through old and new means. For many of them, MSists of today do ally willingly or not with the current owners of the Internet, and its new born cousin, the Internet of things. You cannot ignore that. JC Le 24 oct. 2014 à 23:17, Avri Doria a écrit : > > On 24-Oct-14 16:15, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> I think that Avri's definition remains Avri's idealistic view of a digital Wonderland that she is by the same token contributing to keep at bay from any form of democratic thinking with such non sense (no offense Avri!): > > No offense taken. We see the world and the functioning of institutions differently. I can live with that. I do not believe my descriptions are idealistic, I believe I am describing what I see and the environment I work within. What I think is not only normative, it is descriptive. As with representative democracy, in the places in which some model exists, participatory democracy is not a perfected thing. I agree is is something we strive to make better, and in the trenches of these institutions we keep striving to improve it. > > I do find it ironic that during a period when we are striving to find a way to allow the US government to finally give up its solitary position guarding the stability of the Internet, we are still being accused of supporting their continued position. > > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Oct 25 05:27:47 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:27:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] 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> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> Message-ID: <14946a20a68.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> This is one of those rare occasions where I agree with Jeremy A nation state model does not fit where individual industry and civil society stakeholders might find themselves holding entirely different positions from a government agency representing their country in a particular igov process (and indeed, in the rather unique case of india under the previous government, the strange case where one ministry enthusiastically supported the multistakeholder model while other agencies at other igov events firmly rejected it in favour of multilateral forms of governance) If there is indeed such broad support for multilateral and government driven igov, we might as well disband this list and trust to our government representatives to represent us adequately in the plenipot and at further such events. On 25 October 2014 12:15:25 am David Golumbia wrote: > Since you did not answer my question the first time, and at least one other > person has put it a slightly different way, and here you reference > "state-based ordering" and "nation states are no longer an adequate fit," > in both cases directly indicating that states should be bypassed, > invalidated, or otherwise overcome, I feel it is fair to ask again: is it > fair to say your political philosophy is anarchism? If so, which variety of > anarchism? If not anarchism, which non-state philosophy is it? To whose > political theory should we turn to understand this system in detail? And is > this an official policy position of EFF? > > You are being very critical and dismissive of what you call "harassment" > and "ingrained views," but I can't read your statements here without them > entailing some kind of rejection of exactly the political forms to which > many people who live in democracies are deeply committed. For example: most > citizens of most democratic countries in the world today believe they have > elected their governments and entrust them with the power to represent them > *via* the state. The state is the clearest guarantor of the rights laid out > in the UN Declaration on Human Rights. It seems a reasonable inference to > suggest that the great majority of citizens in most (speaking loosely) > democratic states would not consider the bypassing, invalidation, or > overcoming of the state to be a welcome political development, especially > if it is done by any bodies other than the elected governments they have > put in place. At the very least, they would no doubt demand the right to > vote on it and to subject it to whatever other tests political changes > require in their respective states. Further, not putting such a choice > before them would reject popular sovereignty in the most direct way, thus > making it very hard to see the change as in any sense "democratic." > > I am asking informational questions in an earnest attempt to get a handle > on who it is that has authorized or is pushing for what appears to be a > clear rejection of values and principles that the great majority of people > in the world would be very unlikely to give up (at least not easily), and > what political system is being recommended to replace it. > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these problems. > > However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it comes to making > > progress on important matters, nor is its inclusiveness brilliant. > > > > > > I agree, but the sweeping criticisms of the multi-stakeholder model that > > we hear from JNC members are directed at immature implementations of that > > model of which - here's the point - proponents of multi-stakeholderism have > > themselves been highly critical! > > > > They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these > > implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention > > this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will > > keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said > > that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in > > multi-stakeholder Internet governance? > > > > Take a look, for example, at the latest Best Bits statement to the IGF, > > which is now open for endorsement (please do so if you agree) which > > reiterates criticisms of the IGF's implementation of the multi-stakeholder > > model that we have been repeating endlessly for almost a decade: > > > > bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/ > > > > The fact that these criticisms haven't been taken into account can't be > > attributed to civil society, and doesn't amount to grounds for abandoning > > the ideals behind multi-stakeholder governance just because they haven't > > yet been achieved. Their achievement will be the work of decades, not > > years. > > > > Finally, too much of this thread misconceives that multi-stakeholderism is > > not democratic if it doesn't represent all the people, and that if > > participants in multi-stakeholder processes are anything less then > > everybody, they are "elites". This reflects a very shallow conception of > > democracy, which for example excludes deliberative democratic practices > > where in which we attempt to include all affected *perspectives*, rather > > than all individuals. > > > > As noted above, this can and must be done better than it has been to > > date. But that is no basis for criticism of the political programme that > > underlies the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, which is really > > nothing more than to realise democratic principles on an international > > level where nation states are no longer an adequate fit. > > > > We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views here > > that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth there is > > on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their own list where > > they can advance their models of state-based ordering, while the rest of > > can work on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without > > harassment. > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Global Policy Analyst > > Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm 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: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > David Golumbia > dgolumbia at gmail.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 06:24:51 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 22:24:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] Multistakeholderism/ Was Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Message-ID: Dear All, Sometime ago (many months ago) on the IGC there was some discussion on the list about MSism. Here is a draft synthesis of what people were saying at the time that really should go on the IGC etherpad for comment and further discussion. I tried synthesising it but it needs a group of volunteers to comb through IGC archives and help piece together the different views etc. It is pointless to go on a debate that leads to nowehere except of course where people can accept that there are diverse views and position but resolve to agree to disagree etc. Synthesis of Discussions on the IGC on Multistakeholderism These are interesting times in the context of enhanced cooperation between various stakeholders within the Information Society. The following is a synthesis of perspectives gleaned from the dialogue on the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) list. What does "Multistakeholder" mean? Multistakeholder is a governance structure that brings diverse stakeholders together to cooperate and participate in the dialogue, decision making, and implementation of solutions to common problems or goals[1]. What is Multistakeholderism? Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement; it is not a means of legitimization[2]. Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people[3]. Multistakeholder processes could and should enhance democracy by increasing opportunities for effective participation by those most directly impacted by decisions and particularly those at the grassroots who so often are voiceless in these processes[4]. It should enhance democracy by ensuring that decisions made are reflective of and responsive to local concerns and to the broadest range of those who must bear the consequences[5]. It should enhance democracy by making democratic processes more flexible and responsive, able to adjust to changing contexts circumstances, technologies, and impact populations[6]. In the context of Internet Governance, there exists a diverse set of stakeholders that each have their respective framework which describes how subscribers are to engage. There is no doubt a wide range of foras, organisations, committees or groups where some form of "Multistakeholder" governance is practiced whether various modes of vehicles including but not limited to that of a Trust, Corporation, Organisation, Intergovernmental Forum, an International Organisation or an ad hoc community. Multistakeholderism on an Organizational Level This can be seen within an organizational level, for example, organisations such as Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)[7] has its Bylaws[8] which sets out its mission and core values and describes the various constituencies within ICANN. Each constituency within ICANN has specific framework governing how each stakeholder conducts its affairs. There are many other organisations within the Information Society that have some form of Multistakeholder engagement and these organisations have guidelines that help to act as a framework for relations. Multistakeholderism in Working Groups and Committees This can also be seen with regard to Working Groups, take for example the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The United Nations General Assembly, at its 67th session, adopted Resolution 67/195 on Information and communication technologies for development[9]. This Resolution invited the Chair of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UN CSTD)[10], to establish a working group on enhanced cooperation to examine the mandate of the World Summit on the Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda. The Tunis Agenda[11] pivots on focusing on financial mechanisms for bridging the digital divide, on Internet governance and related issues, as well as on implementation and follow-up of the Geneva and Tunis decisions. The GA RES 67/195 requested the Chair of the UN CSTD to "ensure that the working group on enhanced cooperation has balanced representation between Governments from the five regional groups of the Commission and invites other stakeholders, namely the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and intergovernmental and international organisations". Challenges of Multistakeholderism: Issues within Civil Society In 2004, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) participated in a Civil Society Meeting in Berlin and identified principles and examined issues affecting Civil Society[12]. The meeting comprised of a representative from the ICANN At Large Advisory Committee[13], Humanistiche Union[14], Internet Governance Caucus Coordinator[15], the UN Non- Governmental Liaison Service[16], and African Civil Society for the Information Society[17] and Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations[18]. Principles that were identified in the 2004 meeting included: · Legitimacy; · Representation; · Transparency; and · Accountability. Issues of legitimacy, representation, transparency and accountability continue to surface over the years on a global, regional and national scale (Anja Kovacs & Nnenna Nwakanma). Navigating Through the Maze Just as context differs, whether it is for an organisation or a committee, it is important to acknowledge that context differs whether these are organisations or intergovernmental organisations that are subject to diverse rules and procedures. The United Nations for instance is bound by the Resolutions of its members as per the General Assembly and can only act when mandated. ICANN on the other hand is bound by its Bylaws and its Affirmation of Commitment. Similarly, the Working Groups are bound by their respective mandates whether these are in the form of formal documentation such as organizing instruments or where these are loosely organized in an ad hoc fashion. Whatever, the context, one thing is certain, bringing a diverse group of people poses significant challenges to building consensus and bridging relationships particularly when there are diverse if not polarized perspectives and strong views from various stakeholders. Purpose Precedes Method To this end, a practical means of dealing with diversity is to clearly establish the purpose from the outset (David Allen). After this is established, it is useful to develop the methods where the purpose(s) can be fulfilled (David Allen and Parminder). Given that the nature of Multistakeholder engagement implies the inclusion of civil society, private sector and the public sector, it follows that each categorization has unique concerns and characteristics that relate to its identity. Often the disenfranchisement, turf wars or propaganda is motivated by fears and it is important that these fears are addressed. Part of establishing purpose means to create a safe environment where genuine collaboration can commence. Multistakeholderism is not a replacement (David Allen) and does not take away from each component or part. Rather it is the sum of all parts. Multistakeholderism is not a policy making forum as this is reserved for democratic contexts (David Allen). Multistakeholderism is a means of moving towards greater engagement and enhanced cooperation among diverse stakeholders (Michael Gurstein). ------------------------------ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_Governance_Model [2] Statement by Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT for Change at the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review held by UNESCO from 25th to 27th February, 2013 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_Governance_Model [4] ibid [5] ibid [6] ibid [7] A Californian Non Profit Public-Benefit Corporation [8] http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws [9] http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ares67d195_en.pdf [10] Ambassador Miguel Palomino de la Gala is the current Chair of the UN CSTD [11] http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html [12] Meeting Record on Working Methods of Civil Society (20th November 2004), Berlin, Germany [13] Vittorio Bertola [14] Dr Christoph Bruch [15] Jeanette Hoffman [16] Ramin Kaweh [17] Nnenna Nwakanma [18] Rik Panganiban On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:30 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > It is interesting to see that those who are amongst the most vocal and > public advocates for MSism are also those who refuse to actually indicate > what they mean by MSism. > > > > M > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ujwala.uppaluri at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 07:44:12 2014 From: ujwala.uppaluri at gmail.com (Ujwala Uppaluri) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 17:14:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP-14 Backgrounder Message-ID: Dear All, The Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi has recently begun to work in a sustained way with IG issues. As part of our work, we intend to produce short briefs discussing the main issues that each of the important fora raise and the Indian positions wherever possible, with a view to informing the general audience. The first of these is our PP-14 Backgrounder (attached). Do let us know how you think these can be improved. Best, Ujwala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: (CCG at NLUD)- Backgrounder on ITU PP-14.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 490518 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 ekenyanito at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 08:10:18 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 15:10:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICYMI- What to Watch at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014 from Access Message-ID: Dear all, ICYMI- Here's Access' Plenipot policy brief, "What to Watch at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014," Hope you might find this resource useful it provides an overview of the top procedural and substantive concerns to look out for at the Plenipot as well as recommendations for relevant and productive areas for the ITU to focus its work on in the coming four years. Please feel free to share: https://www.accessnow.org/page/-/docs/WhattoWatchatPlenipot_2.pdf -- Best Regards, ​​ *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito @ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 ​​ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dgolumbia at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 08:36:37 2014 From: dgolumbia at gmail.com (David Golumbia) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 08:36:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544AF5C1.4000100@eff.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> <544AF10A.5090209@eff.org> <544AF5C1.4000100@eff.org> Message-ID: i appreciate this response very much, and although I'm familiar with a couple of the items you list, there are some things I need to catch up on in there, which I will. am I reading you correctly as saying that when you use phrases like "statist" or "state-based ordering" in a critical way, what you are critiquing is the view that states are the *exclusive *bearers of political power (which is very clearly true; among my own concerns is that Google and Facebook and Twitter and many others have political power that rivals or supersedes that of states, and often directly challenges state and popular sovereignty), but not that states should or will go away, at least not without the consent of the people who constitute them? that is absolutely an established use of "statist" as a critical term (but based on my reading, not the most common one, especially in the US), hence my focus on this aspect of what you've written. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 24/10/2014 5:38 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I am asking informational questions in an earnest attempt to get a > handle on who it is that has authorized or is pushing for what appears to > be a clear rejection of values and principles that the great majority of > people in the world would be very unlikely to give up (at least not > easily), and what political system is being recommended to replace it. > > > Further, it's not as if these "great majority of people" have a choice. > The Internet (and the world) is *already* being governed by diverse > institutions many of which have no connection with their elected > representatives. So the choice is not between sticking with a > well-established system or representative democracy or switching to an > alternative called multi-stakeholderism, as you seem to be characterising > it. On the contrary, it's a choice between continuing to submit to diverse > mechanisms of ordering many of which are not state-based or democratic, or > constructing new forms of representation that allow people, independently > of their citizenship, to participate in global governance in ways that > would otherwise be reserved to more powerful actors. Meanwhile the nation > state will continue to play its role, but in global Internet governance it > is not not an exclusive role. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm 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: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- David Golumbia dgolumbia at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 08:51:58 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 05:51:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544AF5C1.4000100@eff.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> <544AF10A.5090209@eff.org> <544AF5C1.4000100@eff.org> Message-ID: <068f01cff052$783816c0$68a84440$@gmail.com> Well said. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 5:59 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 24/10/2014 5:38 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: I am asking informational questions in an earnest attempt to get a handle on who it is that has authorized or is pushing for what appears to be a clear rejection of values and principles that the great majority of people in the world would be very unlikely to give up (at least not easily), and what political system is being recommended to replace it. Further, it's not as if these "great majority of people" have a choice. The Internet (and the world) is already being governed by diverse institutions many of which have no connection with their elected representatives. So the choice is not between sticking with a well-established system or representative democracy or switching to an alternative called multi-stakeholderism, as you seem to be characterising it. On the contrary, it's a choice between continuing to submit to diverse mechanisms of ordering many of which are not state-based or democratic, or constructing new forms of representation that allow people, independently of their citizenship, to participate in global governance in ways that would otherwise be reserved to more powerful actors. Meanwhile the nation state will continue to play its role, but in global Internet governance it is not not an exclusive role. -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 08:51:58 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 05:51:58 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> 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> Message-ID: <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> 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… 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. … 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 Of Sivasubramanian 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 25 09:25:16 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 06:25:16 -0700 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> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06c501cff057$1fb04360$5f10ca20$@gmail.com> Interesting, I'm curious as to how you would operationalize this. M -----Original Message----- From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:06 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Sivasubramanian M; David Allen; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:43 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable or is the issue WHO are the decision makers? What if everyone were allowed to be a decision maker? —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 Of > Sivasubramanian 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Oct 25 10:09:12 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 15:09:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Multistakeholderism/ Was Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1414246152.52916.YahooMailIosMobile@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Thanks Salanieta for the summary.

This is a very complex terminology and i am not sure there is a way to have an accurate definition which every stakeholder will agree on.

Still, your summary gives a starting point for more discussion.

Regards,
A





------
Arsene Tungali,
Executive Director, Rudi International
www.rudiinternational.org
Democratic Republic of Congo

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone (excuse typos)

At 25 oct. 2014 05:24:51, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<'salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com'> wrote:
Dear All,

Sometime ago (many months ago) on the IGC there was some discussion on the list about MSism. Here is a draft synthesis of what people were saying at the time that really should go on the IGC etherpad for comment and further discussion. I tried synthesising it but it needs a group of volunteers to comb through IGC archives and help piece together the different views etc.

It is pointless to go on a debate that leads to nowehere except of course where people can accept that there are diverse views and position but resolve to agree to disagree etc.


Synthesis of Discussions on the IGC on Multistakeholderism

These are interesting times in the context of enhanced cooperation between various stakeholders within the Information Society. The following is a synthesis of perspectives gleaned from the dialogue on the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) list.

What does “Multistakeholder” mean?

Multistakeholder is a governance structure that brings diverse stakeholders together to cooperate and participate in the dialogue, decision making, and implementation of solutions to common problems or goals[1].

What is Multistakeholderism?


Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement; it is not a means of legitimization[2]. Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people[3]. Multistakeholder processes could and should enhance democracy by increasing opportunities for effective participation by those most directly impacted by decisions and particularly those at the grassroots who so often are voiceless in these processes[4]. It should enhance democracy by ensuring that decisions made are reflective of and responsive to local concerns and to the broadest range of those who must bear the consequences[5]. It should enhance democracy by making democratic processes more flexible and responsive, able to adjust to changing contexts circumstances, technologies, and impact populations[6].

In the context of Internet Governance, there exists a diverse set of stakeholders that each have their respective framework which describes how subscribers are to engage. There is no doubt a wide range of foras, organisations, committees or groups where some form of “Multistakeholder” governance is practiced whether various modes of vehicles including but not limited to that of a Trust, Corporation, Organisation, Intergovernmental Forum, an International Organisation or an ad hoc community.

Multistakeholderism on an Organizational Level

This can be seen within an organizational level, for example, organisations such as Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)[7] has its Bylaws[8] which sets out its mission and core values and describes the various constituencies within ICANN.


Each constituency within ICANN has specific framework governing how each stakeholder conducts its affairs.


There are many other organisations within the Information Society that have some form of Multistakeholder engagement and these organisations have guidelines that help to act as a framework for relations.

Multistakeholderism in Working Groups and Committees

This can also be seen with regard to Working Groups, take for example the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.


The United Nations General Assembly, at its 67th session, adopted Resolution 67/195 on Information and communication technologies for development[9]. This Resolution invited the Chair of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UN CSTD)[10], to establish a working group on enhanced cooperation to examine the mandate of the World Summit on the Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda.


The Tunis Agenda[11] pivots on focusing on financial mechanisms for bridging the digital divide, on Internet governance and related issues, as well as on implementation and follow-up of the Geneva and Tunis decisions.


The GA RES 67/195 requested the Chair of the UN CSTD to “ensure that the working group on enhanced cooperation has balanced representation between Governments from the five regional groups of the Commission and invites other stakeholders, namely the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and intergovernmental and international organisations”.

Challenges of Multistakeholderism: Issues within Civil Society

In 2004, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) participated in a Civil Society Meeting in Berlin and identified principles and examined issues affecting Civil Society[12]. The meeting comprised of a representative from the ICANN At Large Advisory Committee[13], Humanistiche Union[14], Internet Governance Caucus Coordinator[15], the UN Non- Governmental Liaison Service[16], and African Civil Society for the Information Society[17] and Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations[18].



Principles that were identified in the 2004 meeting included:

· Legitimacy;

· Representation;

· Transparency; and

· Accountability.


Issues of legitimacy, representation, transparency and accountability continue to surface over the years on a global, regional and national scale (Anja Kovacs & Nnenna Nwakanma).

Navigating Through the Maze

Just as context differs, whether it is for an organisation or a committee, it is important to acknowledge that context differs whether these are organisations or intergovernmental organisations that are subject to diverse rules and procedures. The United Nations for instance is bound by the Resolutions of its members as per the General Assembly and can only act when mandated.


ICANN on the other hand is bound by its Bylaws and its Affirmation of Commitment.


Similarly, the Working Groups are bound by their respective mandates whether these are in the form of formal documentation such as organizing instruments or where these are loosely organized in an ad hoc fashion.


Whatever, the context, one thing is certain, bringing a diverse group of people poses significant challenges to building consensus and bridging relationships particularly when there are diverse if not polarized perspectives and strong views from various stakeholders.

Purpose Precedes Method

To this end, a practical means of dealing with diversity is to clearly establish the purpose from the outset (David Allen). After this is established, it is useful to develop the methods where the purpose(s) can be fulfilled (David Allen and Parminder).

Given that the nature of Multistakeholder engagement implies the inclusion of civil society, private sector and the public sector, it follows that each categorization has unique concerns and characteristics that relate to its identity.


Often the disenfranchisement, turf wars or propaganda is motivated by fears and it is important that these fears are addressed. Part of establishing purpose means to create a safe environment where genuine collaboration can commence.


Multistakeholderism is not a replacement (David Allen) and does not take away from each component or part. Rather it is the sum of all parts.

Multistakeholderism is not a policy making forum as this is reserved for democratic contexts (David Allen).


Multistakeholderism is a means of moving towards greater engagement and enhanced cooperation among diverse stakeholders (Michael Gurstein).


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_Governance_Model

[2] Statement by Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT for Change at the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review held by UNESCO from 25th to 27th February, 2013

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_Governance_Model

[4] ibid

[5] ibid

[6] ibid

[7] A Californian Non Profit Public-Benefit Corporation

[8] http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws

[9] http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ares67d195_en.pdf

[10] Ambassador Miguel Palomino de la Gala is the current Chair of the UN CSTD

[11] http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html

[12] Meeting Record on Working Methods of Civil Society (20th November 2004), Berlin, Germany

[13] Vittorio Bertola

[14] Dr Christoph Bruch

[15] Jeanette Hoffman

[16] Ramin Kaweh

[17] Nnenna Nwakanma

[18] Rik Panganiban




On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:30 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

It is interesting to see that those who are amongst the most vocal and public advocates for MSism are also those who refuse to actually indicate what they mean by MSism.

M


-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sat Oct 25 10:56:30 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 16:56:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <068f01cff052$783816c0$68a84440$@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> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> <544AF10A.5090209@eff.org> <544AF5C1.4000100@eff.org> <068f01cff052$783816c0$68a84440$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <544BBA1E.8040208@apc.org> I also like Jeremy's framing very much. Anriette Copying here for sake of clarity: Further, it's not as if these "great majority of people" have a choice. The Internet (and the world) is /already/ being governed by diverse institutions many of which have no connection with their elected representatives. So the choice is not between sticking with a well-established system or representative democracy or switching to an alternative called multi-stakeholderism, as you seem to be characterising it. On the contrary, it's a choice between continuing to submit to diverse mechanisms of ordering many of which are not state-based or democratic, or constructing new forms of representation that allow people, independently of their citizenship, to participate in global governance in ways that would otherwise be reserved to more powerful actors. Meanwhile the nation state will continue to play its role, but in global Internet governance it is not not an exclusive role. On 25/10/2014 14:51, michael gurstein wrote: > > Well said. > > > > M > > > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy > Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 5:59 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: > [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot > joint recommendations > > > > On 24/10/2014 5:38 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I am asking informational questions in an earnest attempt to get a > handle on who it is that has authorized or is pushing for what > appears to be a clear rejection of values and principles that the > great majority of people in the world would be very unlikely to > give up (at least not easily), and what political system is being > recommended to replace it. > > > Further, it's not as if these "great majority of people" have a > choice. The Internet (and the world) is /already/ being governed by > diverse institutions many of which have no connection with their > elected representatives. So the choice is not between sticking with a > well-established system or representative democracy or switching to an > alternative called multi-stakeholderism, as you seem to be > characterising it. On the contrary, it's a choice between continuing > to submit to diverse mechanisms of ordering many of which are not > state-based or democratic, or constructing new forms of representation > that allow people, independently of their citizenship, to participate > in global governance in ways that would otherwise be reserved to more > powerful actors. Meanwhile the nation state will continue to play its > role, but in global Internet governance it is not not an exclusive role. > > > -- > 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 :: -- ````````````````````````````````` 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 genekimmelman at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 11:26:00 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:26:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Message-ID: +1
-------- Original message --------
From: Anriette Esterhuysen
Date:10/25/2014 10:56 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, michael gurstein , 'Jeremy Malcolm'
Subject: Re: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
I also like Jeremy's framing very much. Anriette Copying here for sake of clarity: Further, it's not as if these "great majority of people" have a choice. The Internet (and the world) is already being governed by diverse institutions many of which have no connection with their elected representatives. So the choice is not between sticking with a well-established system or representative democracy or switching to an alternative called multi-stakeholderism, as you seem to be characterising it. On the contrary, it's a choice between continuing to submit to diverse mechanisms of ordering many of which are not state-based or democratic, or constructing new forms of representation that allow people, independently of their citizenship, to participate in global governance in ways that would otherwise be reserved to more powerful actors. Meanwhile the nation state will continue to play its role, but in global Internet governance it is not not an exclusive role. On 25/10/2014 14:51, michael gurstein wrote: Well said. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 5:59 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 24/10/2014 5:38 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: I am asking informational questions in an earnest attempt to get a handle on who it is that has authorized or is pushing for what appears to be a clear rejection of values and principles that the great majority of people in the world would be very unlikely to give up (at least not easily), and what political system is being recommended to replace it. Further, it's not as if these "great majority of people" have a choice. The Internet (and the world) is already being governed by diverse institutions many of which have no connection with their elected representatives. So the choice is not between sticking with a well-established system or representative democracy or switching to an alternative called multi-stakeholderism, as you seem to be characterising it. On the contrary, it's a choice between continuing to submit to diverse mechanisms of ordering many of which are not state-based or democratic, or constructing new forms of representation that allow people, independently of their citizenship, to participate in global governance in ways that would otherwise be reserved to more powerful actors. Meanwhile the nation state will continue to play its role, but in global Internet governance it is not not an exclusive role. -- 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 :: -- ````````````````````````````````` 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 11:34:14 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 08:34:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org>,<038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> Message-ID: <076601cff069$225aebd0$6710c370$@gmail.com> Inline… From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:32 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote: I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these problems. However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it comes to making progress on important matters, nor is its inclusiveness brilliant. I agree, but the sweeping criticisms of the multi-stakeholder model that we hear from JNC members are directed at immature implementations of that model of which - here's the point - proponents of multi-stakeholderism have themselves been highly critical! [MG>] so what else is the JNC to comment upon… there is no definition, no articulation of principles, no useful formulation that one can respond to and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy—cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only one—international public health, food and nutrition, international resource management, environmental regulation and so on are others. To accomplish this the proponents from the USG, from the WEF, from Google etc. provide a sop to Civil Society and gain their compliance and along with it a degree of legitimation by giving them the illusion of effective participation (the outcome of NetMundial anyone… An extremely risky tradeoff by anyone’s measure and one that is particularly disgusting because it is being agreed to by CS folks (for the most part thankfully still confined in the IG space) without the agreement or even knowledge of either their constituencies such as they are (APC are you listening) or the broader global civil society which they are meant to provide voice for. They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Take a look, for example, at the latest Best Bits statement to the IGF, which is now open for endorsement (please do so if you agree) which reiterates criticisms of the IGF's implementation of the multi-stakeholder model that we have been repeating endlessly for almost a decade: bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/ [MG>] I/we/the JNC etc. are not commenting on the various “immature implementations” of MSism but rather on MSism as a governance model meant to supplant, supersede, replace democracy as the aspirational model for governance in modern society. The fact that these criticisms haven't been taken into account can't be attributed to civil society, and doesn't amount to grounds for abandoning the ideals behind multi-stakeholder governance just because they haven't yet been achieved. Their achievement will be the work of decades, not years. [MG>] yes the replacement of a model of governance that has taken millennia to build and cost the lives of thousands of brave folks and may yet cost the lives of even more (see for example the streets of Hong Kong… BTW, the young protestors in Hong Kong aren’t protesting for multi-stakeholderism where the dominant corporate barons of contemporary China can and will sit at the table with the dominant (civil society?) party structures and dominant governmental structures to determine the fate of the Hong Kong people, that is what they have already! They are putting their lives, bodies and futures on the line for DEMOCRACY, the rule of the people by the people. Finally, too much of this thread misconceives that multi-stakeholderism is not democratic if it doesn't represent all the people, and that if participants in multi-stakeholder processes are anything less then everybody, they are "elites". This reflects a very shallow conception of democracy, which for example excludes deliberative democratic practices where in which we attempt to include all affected perspectives, rather than all individuals. [MG>] huh? MSism by any of the definitions currently on the table (apart from the bizarre flourish of calling it “Participatory Democracy”--I can call my cat a dog from now to eternity that doesn’t make him any less of a cat or any more of dog) doesn’t “represent” anyone other than those who show up or are allowed to show up and through them the interests that they represent. BTW, I’m all in favour of Deliberative (and Participatory for that matter) Democracy, the problem is that neither of these bears any relationship at all either to the current practices or “theories” of MSism. As noted above, this can and must be done better than it has been to date. But that is no basis for criticism of the political programme that underlies the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, which is really nothing more than to realise democratic principles on an international level where nation states are no longer an adequate fit. [MG>] huh? Are you saying that we create democracy by annulling it… we really are in Orwell land. And why this pre-occupation with the nation state in this context. Democracy began outside of nation states, certainly developed within the context of nation states but is neither by definition nor by necessary practice confined within the framework of nation states. BTW I completely agree that there is no longer a particularly good fit between democratic accountability and traditional nation state structures and as I mentioned, in what I think was my first contribution to this thread, I am extremely interested in collaborating with others in exploring alternative strategies for democratic practice which better fit with the opportunities and risks of the globalized Internet era. We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views here that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth there is on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their own list where they can advance their models of state-based ordering, while the rest of can work on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without harassment. [MG>] you can continue with your deliberate misstatements all you like, they just cast a negative shadow on whatever else you are commenting on… M -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Oct 25 15:28:49 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:28:49 +1100 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <076601cff069$225aebd0$6710c370$@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> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> <076601cff069$225aebd0$6710c370$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <68D453C2FB9243E997997574502315AA@Toshiba> Just for clarity – the back and forth here is between Michael’s comments and Jeremy’s - only the first sentence below quoted is mine. Ian From: michael gurstein Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Inline… From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:32 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote: I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these problems. However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it comes to making progress on important matters, nor is its inclusiveness brilliant. I agree, but the sweeping criticisms of the multi-stakeholder model that we hear from JNC members are directed at immature implementations of that model of which - here's the point - proponents of multi-stakeholderism have themselves been highly critical! [MG>] so what else is the JNC to comment upon… there is no definition, no articulation of principles, no useful formulation that one can respond to and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy—cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only one—international public health, food and nutrition, international resource management, environmental regulation and so on are others. To accomplish this the proponents from the USG, from the WEF, from Google etc. provide a sop to Civil Society and gain their compliance and along with it a degree of legitimation by giving them the illusion of effective participation (the outcome of NetMundial anyone… An extremely risky tradeoff by anyone’s measure and one that is particularly disgusting because it is being agreed to by CS folks (for the most part thankfully still confined in the IG space) without the agreement or even knowledge of either their constituencies such as they are (APC are you listening) or the broader global civil society which they are meant to provide voice for. They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Take a look, for example, at the latest Best Bits statement to the IGF, which is now open for endorsement (please do so if you agree) which reiterates criticisms of the IGF's implementation of the multi-stakeholder model that we have been repeating endlessly for almost a decade: bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/ [MG>] I/we/the JNC etc. are not commenting on the various “immature implementations” of MSism but rather on MSism as a governance model meant to supplant, supersede, replace democracy as the aspirational model for governance in modern society. The fact that these criticisms haven't been taken into account can't be attributed to civil society, and doesn't amount to grounds for abandoning the ideals behind multi-stakeholder governance just because they haven't yet been achieved. Their achievement will be the work of decades, not years. [MG>] yes the replacement of a model of governance that has taken millennia to build and cost the lives of thousands of brave folks and may yet cost the lives of even more (see for example the streets of Hong Kong… BTW, the young protestors in Hong Kong aren’t protesting for multi-stakeholderism where the dominant corporate barons of contemporary China can and will sit at the table with the dominant (civil society?) party structures and dominant governmental structures to determine the fate of the Hong Kong people, that is what they have already! They are putting their lives, bodies and futures on the line for DEMOCRACY, the rule of the people by the people. Finally, too much of this thread misconceives that multi-stakeholderism is not democratic if it doesn't represent all the people, and that if participants in multi-stakeholder processes are anything less then everybody, they are "elites". This reflects a very shallow conception of democracy, which for example excludes deliberative democratic practices where in which we attempt to include all affected perspectives, rather than all individuals. [MG>] huh? MSism by any of the definitions currently on the table (apart from the bizarre flourish of calling it “Participatory Democracy”--I can call my cat a dog from now to eternity that doesn’t make him any less of a cat or any more of dog) doesn’t “represent” anyone other than those who show up or are allowed to show up and through them the interests that they represent. BTW, I’m all in favour of Deliberative (and Participatory for that matter) Democracy, the problem is that neither of these bears any relationship at all either to the current practices or “theories” of MSism. As noted above, this can and must be done better than it has been to date. But that is no basis for criticism of the political programme that underlies the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, which is really nothing more than to realise democratic principles on an international level where nation states are no longer an adequate fit. [MG>] huh? Are you saying that we create democracy by annulling it… we really are in Orwell land. And why this pre-occupation with the nation state in this context. Democracy began outside of nation states, certainly developed within the context of nation states but is neither by definition nor by necessary practice confined within the framework of nation states. BTW I completely agree that there is no longer a particularly good fit between democratic accountability and traditional nation state structures and as I mentioned, in what I think was my first contribution to this thread, I am extremely interested in collaborating with others in exploring alternative strategies for democratic practice which better fit with the opportunities and risks of the globalized Internet era. We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views here that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth there is on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their own list where they can advance their models of state-based ordering, while the rest of can work on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without harassment. [MG>] you can continue with your deliberate misstatements all you like, they just cast a negative shadow on whatever else you are commenting on… M -- Jeremy MalcolmSenior Global Policy AnalystElectronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm 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: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Sat Oct 25 15:58:58 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:58:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] 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> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> <544AF10A.5090209@eff.org> <544AF5C1.4000100@eff.org> Message-ID: <739FFDC4-96B4-4A4F-B4D2-5A61FB3A85B4@eff.org> Yes. -- 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 Oct 25, 2014, at 5:36 AM, David Golumbia wrote: > > i appreciate this response very much, and although I'm familiar with a couple of the items you list, there are some things I need to catch up on in there, which I will. > > am I reading you correctly as saying that when you use phrases like "statist" or "state-based ordering" in a critical way, what you are critiquing is the view that states are the exclusive bearers of political power (which is very clearly true; among my own concerns is that Google and Facebook and Twitter and many others have political power that rivals or supersedes that of states, and often directly challenges state and popular sovereignty), but not that states should or will go away, at least not without the consent of the people who constitute them? that is absolutely an established use of "statist" as a critical term (but based on my reading, not the most common one, especially in the US), hence my focus on this aspect of what you've written. > > >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 24/10/2014 5:38 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> I am asking informational questions in an earnest attempt to get a handle on who it is that has authorized or is pushing for what appears to be a clear rejection of values and principles that the great majority of people in the world would be very unlikely to give up (at least not easily), and what political system is being recommended to replace it. >> >> Further, it's not as if these "great majority of people" have a choice. The Internet (and the world) is already being governed by diverse institutions many of which have no connection with their elected representatives. So the choice is not between sticking with a well-established system or representative democracy or switching to an alternative called multi-stakeholderism, as you seem to be characterising it. On the contrary, it's a choice between continuing to submit to diverse mechanisms of ordering many of which are not state-based or democratic, or constructing new forms of representation that allow people, independently of their citizenship, to participate in global governance in ways that would otherwise be reserved to more powerful actors. Meanwhile the nation state will continue to play its role, but in global Internet governance it is not not an exclusive role. >> >> -- >> 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: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > David Golumbia > dgolumbia at gmail.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 17:55:42 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 16:55:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Hungarian Internet taxation Message-ID: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/24/hundreds_of_hungarians_to_take_to_the_streets_in_protest_at_internet_tax/ similar story en francais: http://www.20minutes.fr/high-tech/1466387-20141022-hongrie-propose-taxer-trafic-internet -- 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 Sat Oct 25 18:10:48 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 03:40:48 +0530 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: <149495c8300.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Which is much the same as a politician or bureaucrat representing an entire country. A NGO working with a group of people or an email provider with millions of users may well have their users or stakeholder group's concerns and feedback in mind rather than mere political ideologies or business interests when they contribute. On 25 October 2014 6:22:23 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… > > > > 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. … > > > > 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 Of Sivasubramanian 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 25 19:47:51 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 16:47:51 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <149495c8300.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> 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> <149495c8300.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <089801cff0ae$177fa210$467ee630$@gmail.com> Or they may not…. The difference is that the politician or bureaucrat is subject to some or other formal structure of accountability (these may or may not work all that well but they are there and there are often and increasingly in many instances, legal ways of enforcing them); for the email provider (or NGO) the only accountability is to the market and for the NGO there isn’t even that which of course is a major major problem. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 3:11 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Sivasubramanian M'; 'David Allen' 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 Which is much the same as a politician or bureaucrat representing an entire country. A NGO working with a group of people or an email provider with millions of users may well have their users or stakeholder group's concerns and feedback in mind rather than mere political ideologies or business interests when they contribute. On 25 October 2014 6:22:23 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… 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. … 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 Of Sivasubramanian 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Oct 25 23:58:11 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 20:58:11 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <089801cff0ae$177fa210$467ee630$@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> <149495c8300.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <089801cff0ae$177fa210$467ee630$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2ABF0F4D-24B7-44A0-8865-8E38C1712D3B@eff.org> On Oct 25, 2014, at 4:47 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > The difference is that the politician or bureaucrat is subject to some or other formal structure of accountability (these may or may not work all that well but they are there and there are often and increasingly in many instances, legal ways of enforcing them); for the email provider (or NGO) the only accountability is to the market and for the NGO there isn’t even that which of course is a major major problem. There are many ways in which NGOs make themselves accountable accountable (by internal elections, membership meetings, publication of records) and for INGOs there is an accountability forum that holds them to a high standard. Additionally in the Internet governance space, we are under the microscope of certain of our peers who have appointed themselves with that task, and who seem to go about it with some delight, even to the detriment of our more substantive agenda. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Oct 26 01:43:59 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:13:59 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <2ABF0F4D-24B7-44A0-8865-8E38C1712D3B@eff.org> 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> <149495c8300.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <089801cff0ae$177fa210$467ee630$@gmail.com> <2ABF0F4D-24B7-44A0-8865-8E38C1712D3B@eff.org> Message-ID: <1494afb71a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Those certain colleagues - well, it is entirely possible to advise them to do something anatomically impossible to themselves and then continue as usual.. An agency's political oversight on the other hand isn't as easy to ignore but then it often depends on political rather than sound policy imperatives On 26 October 2014 9:28:45 am Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Oct 25, 2014, at 4:47 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > The difference is that the politician or bureaucrat is subject to some or > other formal structure of accountability (these may or may not work all > that well but they are there and there are often and increasingly in many > instances, legal ways of enforcing them); for the email provider (or NGO) > the only accountability is to the market and for the NGO there isn’t even > that which of course is a major major problem. > > There are many ways in which NGOs make themselves accountable accountable > (by internal elections, membership meetings, publication of records) and > for INGOs there is an accountability forum that holds them to a high standard. > > Additionally in the Internet governance space, we are under the microscope > of certain of our peers who have appointed themselves with that task, and > who seem to go about it with some delight, even to the detriment of our > more substantive agenda. > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 02:52:55 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:52:55 +1300 Subject: [governance] Russia-China Cyber Security Treaty Text [Request for more Info] Message-ID: Dear All, It has been said that the Treaty is expected to be signed on November 10, 2014. Grateful if anyone from the Russia IGF community or China could advise whether a Draft is out for viewing. I saw it here: http://rt.com/politics/197812-russia-china-network-security/ Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 03:31:48 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:31:48 +1300 Subject: [governance] Hungarian Internet taxation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The only thought that comes to me is that the Tax Regime in Hungary must be really desperate for revenue. This might be a great time to showcase how taxing access can be an impediment and restriction to growth of local content, innovation etc. #sigh On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM, McTim wrote: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/24/hundreds_of_hungarians_to_take_to_the_streets_in_protest_at_internet_tax/ > > similar story en francais: > > > http://www.20minutes.fr/high-tech/1466387-20141022-hongrie-propose-taxer-trafic-internet > > -- > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Oct 26 03:43:51 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:43:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] ITU - Internet related Resolutions Message-ID: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> A document combining various Internet related resolutions being considered at the ITU Plenipotentiary is available on WCITLeaks.org. These working docs not available through the ITU's website, seem to require ties account. Internet related Also, security related resolutions seem on limited distribution, but available on WCITleaks. and Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 14:35:20 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:35:20 -0700 Subject: FW: [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: 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$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> <078201cff06b$bb211c70$31635550$@gmail.com> <088c01cff0a9$e5cd4cd0$b167e670$@gmail.com> <190AC373-DA42-4884-A2CC-5A85A0E0DD63@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <0ab901cff14b$993b1120$cbb13360$@gmail.com> David, From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:35 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 26 Oct 2014, at 7:17 am, michael gurstein wrote: and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. NO, the opposite is true. The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a series of MS entities and processes. It is those who insist that gov't be in charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)" [MG>] well maybe those "who insist that gov't be in charge" believe whatever it is you say they believe (you should ask them) but not sure what that has to do with my comments... Well, you could always ask your JNC colleague Richard Hill about why he was so keen on the ITU taking on more control over Internet governance, I'm sure he will be happy to explain. If you, or the JNC generally, believe that government led, multi-lateral, fora such as the ITU, are also inappropriate for transnational Internet government, I'm sure there are many who would appreciate clarifying your position. [MG>] I have no specialized knowledge or expertise in the details of transnational governance. My discussion was at the level of principles and governance models the detailed application of which I would leave to those (such as Richard Hill) with such specialized knowledge. My own position would be that such governance should take place in the form and in the context most likely to reflect the broader democratic values. I would not either rule in or rule out any specific context prima facie simply because it was or was not a UN agency for example (as seems to be the case for MSists/anti-Democracy proponents). In any case my overall principle would be how the venue and process would most clearly reflect democratic values and processes and for many cases how these activities might further promote and support democratic processes and values. I presume that MSists/anti-Democracy proponents would adopt a similar position concerning MSism i.e. how the particular venue (for example the proposed WEF as a venue) would promote MSism i.e. governance by self-selected elites and further undermining of traditional approaches to Democratic values and governance processes. (BTW, I'm still waiting for the argument from our distinguished CS colleagues towards the HK demonstrators on how MSism will be a "evolutionary enhancement" of the democracy that they have so bravely been advocating. Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy-cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only one- No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any other area of governance. [MG>] good for you... but you should take you nose out of the router box and take a look at http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US%20Steer com%20Reelection%20Letter%20-%20signed%20by%20J%206-12-14.pdf I find myself truly baffled as to what you find so sinister about USG support of open government initiatives. Is this just circular reasoning, whereby it is deemed to be bad because the USG is doing it, which can then be taken as an example of the USGs sinister agenda? I know the open government folks in Australia, and they are terrific, the open government movement is something I would have thought CS was unreservedly in favour of, but apparently not.... [MG>] I was in this casual listing simply responding to McTim's quite ill-informed comment that MSism is not being applied in any other area of "governance" however I think my inclusion here of Open Government initiatives in this listing was over-hasty. In fact OG/OGD/OGP activities differ quite significantly from IG MSism in that for OG the MS activities are clearly confined to advisory and accountability processes and not decision making.. A further difference is that, at least at the moment there is no significant corporate involvement in the OGP MS processes (a source of concern it should be said to certain of the governmental proponents of OGP). (I have blogged quite extensively on OG activities .) http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014 etc.etc. Yes, corporate investment in nations with weak governance raises a host of policy questions, and the USG has a position on this. Are there specific relevant points in regards to Internet governance, or transnational governance in general, that you are trying to make here? [MG>] no, this is simply a listing pointing to other areas where attempts are being made to implant MSism as a mechanism for global governance. There was a very extensive documentation recently on an attempt including through very heavy corporate involvement, NGO greenwashing, policy log-rolling in favour of corporate interests from various specific national governments, and so on to derail (or rather reconstruct in a MS format) a series of multi-lateral agreements and I believe treaty processes for controlling of deforestation. The result was, rather than a treaty there was a toothless MS governance framework which postponed effective action by at least a decade, made a few NGO/consultants and their corporate clients rich and effectively screwed the rest of us by preventing intervention into a highly destructive (to the common good) lucrative (to the multinational logging companies) status quo of forest cover destruction--(sound familiar at all). (I can't put my finger on the references at the moment but perhaps someone reading this will pass along the relevant link.) They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism. We saw that from WSIS thru NetMundial. CS is in favour of MSism, but that doesn't mean the status quo. Look at, for example, the moves through NetMundial and within ICANN to bring human rights explicitly into the policy processes of technical organisations, largely led by CS (and resisted by the technical community). [MG>] some of CS is in favour of MSism. Full-throated almost messianic support for MSism within CS is (thankfully) only confined to the IG space at the moment. The technical community may be resisting human rights in the IG space because of their built in blinders and general policy narrow-mindedess but the corporate folks have no problem with trading off support for HR as in "freedom of expression" and "freedom of assembly" for CS support since it costs them nothing and gains them a huge degree of credibility including with their staff and major market demographics. (It also not coincidentally fits quite well with their "open networks" business models and global marketing strategies.) Just see what happens with that support when, as is conventionally promoted by CS, the inclusion of "social justice" as a Human Right is promoted. I'm still waiting for any of the conventional CS groups in the IG space to come out with a strong position arguing for human rights and social justice i.e. human rights not just for the white Developed Country middle class folks but also as it benefits everyone else in the world. M Cheers 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 Sun Oct 26 15:29:15 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:29:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] MSism or Democracy In-Reply-To: <09d401cff114$ecf0fcd0$c6d2f670$@gmail.com> References: <09d401cff114$ecf0fcd0$c6d2f670$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0ad401cff153$214fef20$63efcd60$@gmail.com> For those who have been following the current discussion on MSism but may be a wee bit lost- I'm expecting that there is some feeling that those nice folks that we all meet and drink with at various meetings in interesting parts of the world could not possibly be supporting a position which rejects democracy as the fundamental and aspirational model for global (Internet and other) governance. But I've been waiting for the documentation, the argumentation, the set of references and white papers which outline what is actually meant by the Multi-stakeholder model of governance (apart from it not being about any form of democracy that any reasonable observer might agree with) that these folks have been so loudly and widely promoting as the new form of governance that will resolve the problems of the Internet and the weaknesses in current governance forms and processes. There is a terminology certainly, and there are an almost infinite number of exhortations for MS this and MS that but when it comes to details such as I and others have been requesting for several years and which I directly have been requesting over the last few days from those resident in these Internet Governance discussion spaces, and we know that all the leading lights of CS at least are resident in one or another of these spaces, the only response has been the trivial and trivializing comment from Gene Kimmelman that he (and presumably his CS colleagues) haven't had time (over the last 3 or 4 years) to provide this information. Meanwhile they have been insisting at every possible juncture on a model of governance-MSist which would replace democracy as the fundamental organizing and aspirational principle for global (Internet) governance. Hmmm.. Either they don't want to be explicit because they know what the reaction of the world would be or they really don't know. So let me make a stab at it. Based on my fairly close reading of these discussions and following up on whatever few references have been pointed to, for me the documents below provide the best insight into what the MSists are proposing for the broad framework of global (Internet) governance for the future. The first document is from the World Economic Forum which, with funding from the Government of Qatar and others launched a research program "about ways in which international institutions and arrangements should be adapted to contemporary challenges". The second is from a private (and largely corporate funded) think tank in the US which specializes in policy discussions. The third is from a private consulting firm specializing in corporate strategy but evidently supported in this effort by ISOC and a variety of corporate and other sponsors. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRI_EverybodysBusiness_Report_2010.pdf (particularly the Systemic Overview starting pp. 19 http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Si ngle_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf (worth taking a wander through the whole thing given the "stellar" nature of the contributors http://gsnetworks.org/research_posts/the-remarkable-internet-governance-netw ork-part-i/ http://gsnetworks.org/research_posts/the-remarkable-internet-governance-netw ork-part-ii/ IMHO it is worth spending a half day working one's way through these documents as they provide the road map which the MSists appear to be following. Not much more detail on what MSism might actually mean in practice but lots of discussion on how it could be implemented to respond to a variety of policy "challenges" since "democratic" solutions are so, well, 20th century although the people who gave up their lives for Democracy during the Arab Spring, in the Ukraine, in Eastern Europe, and elsewhere might possibly disagree. If I've gotten the MSist canon/program wrong I would be delighted to be corrected and given direction to more appropriate documents. M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:35 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 26 Oct 2014, at 7:17 am, michael gurstein wrote: and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. NO, the opposite is true. The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a series of MS entities and processes. It is those who insist that gov't be in charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)" [MG>] well maybe those "who insist that gov't be in charge" believe whatever it is you say they believe (you should ask them) but not sure what that has to do with my comments... Well, you could always ask your JNC colleague Richard Hill about why he was so keen on the ITU taking on more control over Internet governance, I'm sure he will be happy to explain. If you, or the JNC generally, believe that government led, multi-lateral, fora such as the ITU, are also inappropriate for transnational Internet government, I'm sure there are many who would appreciate clarifying your position. Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy-cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only one- No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any other area of governance. [MG>] good for you... but you should take you nose out of the router box and take a look at http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US%20Steer com%20Reelection%20Letter%20-%20signed%20by%20J%206-12-14.pdf I find myself truly baffled as to what you find so sinister about USG support of open government initiatives. Is this just circular reasoning, whereby it is deemed to be bad because the USG is doing it, which can then be taken as an example of the USGs sinister agenda? I know the open government folks in Australia, and they are terrific, the open government movement is something I would have thought CS was unreservedly in favour of, but apparently not.... http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014 etc.etc. Yes, corporate investment in nations with weak governance raises a host of policy questions, and the USG has a position on this. Are there specific relevant points in regards to Internet governance, or transnational governance in general, that you are trying to make here? They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism. We saw that from WSIS thru NetMundial. CS is in favour of MSism, but that doesn't mean the status quo. Look at, for example, the moves through NetMundial and within ICANN to bring human rights explicitly into the policy processes of technical organisations, largely led by CS (and resisted by the technical community). Cheers 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 Sun Oct 26 15:44:37 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:44:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] Multistakeholder or Democracy Message-ID: <0ae301cff155$46ce40b0$d46ac210$@gmail.com> Tks Richard ================= It is useful to look at the kind of views on global Internet governance that have been expressed in WEF reports over the last few years. This is what an analysis[2] of the WEF's Global Redesign Initiative (GRI) has to say about the initiative: "One of GRI's major recommendations is that experiences with "multistakeholder consultations" on global matters should evolve into "multi-stakeholder governance" arrangements. This transformation means that non-state actors would no longer just provide input to decision-makers (e.g. governments or multinational corporations) but would actually be responsible for making global policy decisions... "Their recommendations for multistakeholder governance include the introduction of parallel meetings with the governing bodies of the WHO, UNESCO, and FAO where non-state actors will hold independent sessions as a complement to the official government meetings. GRI also recommends a second new form of multi-stakeholder governance for conflict zones in developing countries. They propose that the non-state actors, particularly the business community, join with the UN system to jointly administer these conflict zones. "There are some sharp differences between "multistakeholder consultations" and "multistakeholder governance", some of which are often blurred by the loose use of the term "multistakeholder" ." Multistakeholderism apparently is a new, post-democratic form of governance which gives big business a major, institutionalised, political role and authority. Multistakeholderism in this form is the preferred neoliberal model of governance, whose application begins at the global level and with Internet governance but is certainly meant to be taken to national levels as well as to all sectors of governance. The plan is dead serious, with clear calls for setting up multistakeholder organisations that will do policy-making and governance. To quote the WEF's Global Agenda Council on the Future of the Internet from GRI's final report[3]: "This means designing multistakeholder structures for the institutions that deal with global problems with an online dimension. Thus the establishment of a multistakeholder institution to address such issues as Internet privacy, copyright, crime and dispute resolution is necessary. The government voice would be one among many, without always being the final arbiter. And as ever more problems come to acquire an online dimension, the multistakeholder institution would become the default in international cooperation." 2[MG>] http://www.umb.edu/gri/appraisal_of_wefs_perspectives_first_objective_enhanc ed legitimacy/multistakeholderism 3 'Everybody's Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World', pp. 317-21. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRI_EverybodysBusiness_Report_2010.pdf -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 17:58:25 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 14:58:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management Message-ID: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… instructs the Secretary General 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP addresses accordingly; 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities designated with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning resources and dealing with day-to-day technical and operational matters; 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance on technical capabilities to developing countries; 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes place within the country; 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of communication; 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the weaknesses of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and recommend secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the requirements of future networks in view of the envisaged manifold increase in traffic and end devices in near future in the light of IoT and M2M needs; 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: S14-PP-C-0098!!MSW-E.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 48236 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 18:06:23 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 03:36:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On this topic I have posted this: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141025_an_open_letter_to_the_prime_minister_of_india/ Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:28 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > * [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with > many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… * > > instructs the Secretary General > 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and > intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to > develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries > are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP > addresses accordingly; > 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including > International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for > allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, > numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, > democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities designated > with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning resources and dealing > with day-to-day technical and operational matters; > 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that > addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, > resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance on > technical capabilities to developing countries; > 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the > country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes > place within the country; > 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic > originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; > 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the > network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of > communication; > 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the weaknesses > of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and recommend > secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the requirements of > future networks in view of the envisaged manifold increase in traffic and > end devices in near future in the light of IoT and M2M needs; > 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Oct 26 18:17:43 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 15:17:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 26, 2014, at 2:58 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… Actually, I suspect the reaction is more weariness and sadness than "going apoplectic". Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself) -------------- 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun Oct 26 18:34:20 2014 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:34:20 -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> Message-ID: Good job Siva! Congratulations. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Sivasubramanian M Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Sivasubramanian M Date: Sunday, October 26, 2014 at 20:06 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , michael gurstein Cc: "forum at justnetcoalition.org" , "Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: Re: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management On this topic I have posted this: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141025_an_open_letter_to_the_prime_minister_ of_india/ Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:28 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with many of > the Status Quo-ists going apoplecticŠ > > instructs the Secretary General > 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and > intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to > develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries are > easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP addresses > accordingly; > 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including International > and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for allocation, > assignment and management of IP resources including naming, numbering and > addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, democratic and > transparent and need to be adhered to by entities designated with the > responsibilities of allocating or assigning resources and dealing with > day-to-day technical and operational matters; > 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that > addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, resilience, > routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance on technical > capabilities to developing countries; > 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures > effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the country, > traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes place within > the country; > 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures > that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and > terminating in the country remains within the country; > 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the > network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of > communication; > 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the weaknesses of > present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and recommend secure, > robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the requirements of future networks > in view of the envisaged manifold increase in traffic and end devices in near > future in the light of IoT and M2M needs; > 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 18:49:28 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:19:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Vanda Thank you for your kind words. :) Sivasubramanian M ​+91 99524 03099​ On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > Good job Siva! Congratulations. > *Vanda Scartezini* > *Polo Consultores Associados* > *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004* > *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil* > *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <%2B55%2011%203266.6253>* > *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <%2B%2055%2011%2098181.1464> * > *So**rry for any typos. * > > > From: Sivasubramanian M > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > Sivasubramanian M > Date: Sunday, October 26, 2014 at 20:06 > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > michael gurstein > Cc: "forum at justnetcoalition.org" , "Bits > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: Re: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce > national routing and IP management > > On this topic I have posted this: > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141025_an_open_letter_to_the_prime_minister_of_india/ > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:28 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> * [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with >> many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… * >> >> instructs the Secretary General >> 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and >> intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to >> develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries >> are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP >> addresses accordingly; >> 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including >> International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for >> allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, >> numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, >> democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities designated >> with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning resources and dealing >> with day-to-day technical and operational matters; >> 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that >> addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, >> resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance on >> technical capabilities to developing countries; >> 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which >> ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the >> country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes >> place within the country; >> 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which >> ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic >> originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; >> 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the >> network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of >> communication; >> 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the >> weaknesses of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and >> recommend secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the >> requirements of future networks in view of the envisaged manifold increase >> in traffic and end devices in near future in the light of IoT and M2M >> needs; >> 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received > this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this > email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 19:18:46 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:18:46 -0700 Subject: FW: [governance] Tweedledum andTweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period forITU Plenipot joint recommendations Message-ID: <0be001cff173$31c8ccd0$955a6670$@gmail.com> With permission… M From: projectallende at gmail.com [mailto:projectallende at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Project Allende Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:26 PM To: rhill at hill-a.ch Cc: michael gurstein; JNC Forum Subject: Re: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum andTweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period forITU Plenipot joint recommendations Be afraid, be very afraid (or at least very wary). I'm sure I don't need to tell seasoned negotiators like yourselves but Multi Stakeholderism is, in my experience, an insidious but effective approach (similar to the new trend in corporate/government fora such as the WEF or the annual Davos meetings) where corporates play a state-like role in many decision-making spheres thereby giving them direct decision-making (veto blocking, or conversation orienting) capabilities in regulatory decisions (typically those which affect their profits). Examples include big data and those same corporate's abilities to use certain technologies (such as profiling/personalisation meta-data) which may be considered by many governments part of their own regulatory or security interest. For people (like myself) who work in the ecology realm: multi-stakeholderism has been all the rage in the United Nations when it comes to Green tech and light touch "corporate responsibility" (anti command and control) "market-based" approaches to prevent effective action on climate change. Corporates as stake-holders (with a kind of one-dollar-one-vote notion of democracy) are often involved directly (or in parallel processes) in the world's climate change negotiations such as the COP UNFCCC processes currently in Peru and soon to play live in Paris. Having a seat at the table allows the corporate stakeholders to help prevent any serious democratic or government regulation from happening by being capable of stopping the regulation in their tracks. From my experience in monitoring the post-2015 UN Processes and even more so the Rio+20 corporate green-tech takeover, this multi-stakeholderism is a sort of deep pocketed capability of affecting any possible profit-negative decisions in the regulatory processes that ultimately affect all of our lives. Tony _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum at justnetcoalition.org http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org -- Tony Phillips Coordinating Editor; Europe on the Brink; Debt, Crisis and Dissent in the European Periphery: Zed Books -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 26 20:46:06 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:16:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tweedledum andTweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period forITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <0be001cff173$31c8ccd0$955a6670$@gmail.com> References: <0be001cff173$31c8ccd0$955a6670$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4266080F-5204-45DD-B1C9-55B19D5DBA61@hserus.net> Oh, so this man's idea of multistakeholderism is now redefined as "give civil society a seat at the table but keep those evil corporates out"? And "big data" is on a par with "big tobacco", "big oil" etc? Interesting, and even funny, screed, I must say. --srs (iPad) > On 27-Oct-2014, at 04:48, michael gurstein wrote: > > With permission… > > M > > From: projectallende at gmail.com [mailto:projectallende at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Project Allende > Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:26 PM > To: rhill at hill-a.ch > Cc: michael gurstein; JNC Forum > Subject: Re: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum andTweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period forITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Be afraid, be very afraid > (or at least very wary). > > I'm sure I don't need to tell seasoned negotiators like yourselves but Multi Stakeholderism is, in my experience, an insidious but effective approach (similar to the new trend in corporate/government fora such as the WEF or the annual Davos meetings) where corporates play a state-like role in many decision-making spheres thereby giving them direct decision-making (veto blocking, or conversation orienting) capabilities in regulatory decisions (typically those which affect their profits). > > Examples include big data and those same corporate's abilities to use certain technologies (such as profiling/personalisation meta-data) which may be considered by many governments part of their own regulatory or security interest. > > For people (like myself) who work in the ecology realm: multi-stakeholderism has been all the rage in the United Nations when it comes to Green tech and light touch "corporate responsibility" (anti command and control) "market-based" approaches to prevent effective action on climate change. Corporates as stake-holders (with a kind of one-dollar-one-vote notion of democracy) are often involved directly (or in parallel processes) in the world's climate change negotiations such as the COP UNFCCC processes currently in Peru and soon to play live in Paris. > > Having a seat at the table allows the corporate stakeholders to help prevent any serious democratic or government regulation from happening by being capable of stopping the regulation in their tracks. From my experience in monitoring the post-2015 UN Processes and even more so the Rio+20 corporate green-tech takeover, this multi-stakeholderism is a sort of deep pocketed capability of affecting any possible profit-negative decisions in the regulatory processes that ultimately affect all of our lives. > > Tony > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org > > -- > Tony Phillips > Coordinating Editor; > Europe on the Brink; > Debt, Crisis and Dissent in the European Periphery: Zed Books > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Oct 26 20:53:16 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:23:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: This isn't "abolish BGP" as much as the old "bypass the RIR structure" and "force local interconnection at a national exchange point" - works well enough in theory with a national internet registry and mandatory peering at a local exchange, but taken to its (il)logical limits, you could easily end up with your own national intranet, great firewall of China style. With the telecom minister that favored multistakeholderism being removed in the recent elections, I guess the "other" part of indian officialdom that has steadfastly rejected multistakeholderism remains alive and well. And India being India, implementation of this will remain a challenge, as the various (mostly industry) responses to the recent TRAI consultative paper on why more indian operators don't peer at NIXI shows. --srs (iPad) > On 27-Oct-2014, at 03:28, michael gurstein wrote: > > [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… > > instructs the Secretary General > 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP addresses accordingly; > 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities designated with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning resources and dealing with day-to-day technical and operational matters; > 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance on technical capabilities to developing countries; > 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes place within the country; > 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; > 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of communication; > 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the weaknesses of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and recommend secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the requirements of future networks in view of the envisaged manifold increase in traffic and end devices in near future in the light of IoT and M2M needs; > 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 21:13:54 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:13:54 +1300 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:58 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > * [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with > many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic... * > > instructs the Secretary General > 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and > intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to > develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries > are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP > addresses accordingly; > Sala: This is already being effectively administered and managed by the Regional Internet Registries and the system works effectively. What is the paper and rationale behind this exercise? It should be shared with the communities for critique? > 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including > International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for > allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, > numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, > democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities designated > with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning resources and dealing > with day-to-day technical and operational matters; > Sala: There are open Policy Development Processes that stakeholders are welcome to be involved in and debate. What specific aspect points the management of IP resources as not being equitable, fair, just, democratic and transparent? > 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that > addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, > resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance on > technical capabilities to developing countries; > Sala: For countries who are now experiencing liberalisation, are we going back to Government led and run Telcos? There will be a fight expected from the Telcos without a doubt. > 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the > country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes > place within the country; > Sala: Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) should work just fine. > 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic > originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; > Sala: Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) should work just fine. > 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the > network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of > communication; > 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the weaknesses > of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and recommend > secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the requirements of > future networks in view of the envisaged manifold increase in traffic and > end devices in near future in the light of IoT and M2M needs; > 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Oct 26 22:08:12 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:08:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] ITU - Internet related Resolutions In-Reply-To: References: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <2BF76365-6403-4233-95DE-1A1038A30EE3@glocom.ac.jp> On Oct 27, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Adam wrote: > >> A document combining various Internet related resolutions being considered at the ITU Plenipotentiary is available on WCITLeaks.org. These working docs not available through the ITU's website, seem to require ties account. >> >> Internet related > > We got through a good bit of this on Saturday afternoon, though with little to no substantive outcome, because of irreconcilable differences between Saudi Arabia and the OECD countries. Debate continues this (Monday) evening. > Is Saudi speaking for a large block of countries? Adam > -Bill > > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 22:50:57 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:20:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] ITU - Internet related Resolutions In-Reply-To: References: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hello, Does the Plenipot process allow Resolutions to be introduced by Members States while the Conference is in progress? For e.g. on 1) charging principles for international Cross-Network Mobile Usage 2) Charging Principles of International Bandwidth Usage 3) Charging Principles for International, Inter-Operator Peering 4) Harmonization of Spectrum Allocation Policy Worldwide 5) Charging Principles for International Short Term mobile connections for Voice and Data. There are other topics that the Community could think of. If for some reason the Plenipot does not allow any Member State / Sector Member to introduce Resolutions at this stage, then some of the participants could at least discuss any or all of these or more of these Telecom related topics on the sidelines. These are topics that are easier, and the ITU Members could demonstrate their commitment to ICT reforms by reaching a quick Consensus :) Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Nigel Hickson wrote: > Paul and colleagues > > The second Ad Hoc in Internet Resolutions (101/102/133/180) will be at > 18.30 tonight; will also be where proposals for new Resolutions will be > presented including the Indian proposal. On Saturday we had initial read > through of half of Res 101 and all of Res 133. > > Best > > Nigel > > > On 27/10/14 11:27, "Paul Wilson" wrote: > > >Thanks Bill. > > > >was there any webcast or transcript kept for this session? i guess > >maybe not since it was an ³ad hoc². > > > >but some insights into the specific issues and discussions would be very > >useful. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Paul > > > > > > > >On 27 Oct 2014, at 11:30 am, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > >> > >> On Oct 26, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Adam wrote: > >> > >>> A document combining various Internet related resolutions being > >>>considered at the ITU Plenipotentiary is available on WCITLeaks.org. > >>>These working docs not available through the ITU's website, seem to > >>>require ties account. > >>> > >>> Internet related > >>> > >> > >> We got through a good bit of this on Saturday afternoon, though with > >>little to no substantive outcome, because of irreconcilable differences > >>between Saudi Arabia and the OECD countries. Debate continues this > >>(Monday) evening. > >> > >> -Bill > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list > >> discuss at 1net.org > >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >discuss mailing list > >discuss at 1net.org > >http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurcharya at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 00:22:08 2014 From: gurcharya at gmail.com (Guru Acharya) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:52:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree that India's strategy in Proposal 98 is not well thought out. However, I think India's concerns stem from the following: 1) IP addresses are not equitably distributed in the Asia Pacific region. The skewed allocation is reflected in the statistics that Eastern Asia holds 2,712,098 of the IPv4/24 addresses while South Asia (including India) holds only 170,365 of the IPv4/24 addresses. 2) APNIC Executive Council (EC) has remained largely static and arguably captured by the East Asians and Australians for almost a decade. In the APNIC EC elections, the votes allotted to members are in proportion of the IP addresses held by them. For example, if the IP holding is up to /22, the member has 2 votes; and if the IP holding is between /13 and /10, then the member has 32 votes. Effectively, due to the current skewed allocation of IP addresses, representatives of India do not stand much of a chance in APNIC EC elections. Notably, India has had just one representative (for one year) on the APNIC EC in the past decade. Additionally, while this system of proportional voting creates a bias in favour of incumbent members who have grandfathered large IP holdings, the system penalises those members who are using IP addresses efficiently (for example by using Network Address Translation) and also penalises the community that is yet to connect to the Internet or has connected to the Internet late. 3) There are two options for redistribution of IP addresses. The first is to go through the APNIC PDP, which is to reform APNIC from within. The second is to bypass APNIC and ask ITU to take over the RIR function. India seems to have adopted the second path due to lack of trust in the first path, which would be slow, bottom-up, and subject to resistance by incumbents. Further, APNIC EC plays a crucial role in the consensus building process and I doubt any reform of the APNIC EC will not be resisted. 4) With respect to the IANA transition, the APNIC secretariat drafted a proposal and pushed that proposal top-down onto the community, which was accepted as having consensus without any intelligent discussion in a conference (APNIC38) at a remote location (please read transcripts of APNIC38). This proposal suggests NTIA oversight should be replaced with a SLA/AOC between ICANN and the NRO (combination of the 5 RIRs). An obvious corollary of this extra added responsibility of oversight should be enhanced accountability of the RIRs. Notably, APNIC is refusing to accept any discussions on enhancing its accountability as part of the IANA transition plan. Enhanced accountability of APNIC would include a measure of representativeness in my opinion. While I feel that India's concerns are genuine, I also feel the path adopted is incorrect. If this proposal goes through as is, it can fragment the Internet through three routes: First, through alternate (non-IETF) standards emerging (from ITU) to address security concerns that are not inter-operable with existing standards; Second, through a broken non-unique allocation of IP addresses where ITU and RIRs allocate IP addresses in parallel; Third, through an alternate root zone emerging to address the names part of Proposal 98. Additionally, some of India's concerns are driven by cyber security that can be addressed domestically and do not require regional/international reform. For example, domestic routing of traffic can be done by making the IXPs more efficient. The comments received in the TRAI (India's telecom regulator) consultations point towards numerous areas of improvement for NIXI (India's IXP). Similarly, domestic hosting of content can be facilitated by improving the privacy regime and intermediary liability regime. While I'm not saying India's strategy is right, I do believe that India interfaces with broken regional/international institutions that need some regional/international reform in addition to its domestic reforms. Thanks, Acharya On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:58 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> * [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with >> many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… * >> >> instructs the Secretary General >> 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and >> intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to >> develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries >> are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP >> addresses accordingly; >> > Sala: This is already being effectively administered and managed by the > Regional Internet Registries and the system works effectively. What is the > paper and rationale behind this exercise? It should be shared with the > communities for critique? > >> 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including >> International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for >> allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, >> numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, >> democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities designated >> with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning resources and dealing >> with day-to-day technical and operational matters; >> > Sala: There are open Policy Development Processes that stakeholders are > welcome to be involved in and debate. What specific aspect points the > management of IP resources as not being equitable, fair, just, democratic > and transparent? > >> 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that >> addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, >> resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance on >> technical capabilities to developing countries; >> > Sala: For countries who are now experiencing liberalisation, are we going > back to Government led and run Telcos? There will be a fight expected from > the Telcos without a doubt. > >> 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which >> ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the >> country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes >> place within the country; >> > Sala: Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) should work just fine. > >> 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which >> ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic >> originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; >> > Sala: Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) should work just fine. > >> 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the >> network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of >> communication; >> 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the >> weaknesses of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and >> recommend secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the >> requirements of future networks in view of the envisaged manifold increase >> in traffic and end devices in near future in the light of IoT and M2M >> needs; >> 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 Mon Oct 27 01:20:53 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:20:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Acharya, On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Guru Acharya wrote: > I agree that India's strategy in Proposal 98 is not well thought out. > However, I think India's concerns stem from the following: > > 1) IP addresses are not equitably distributed in the Asia Pacific region. > The skewed allocation is reflected in the statistics that Eastern Asia holds > 2,712,098 of the IPv4/24 addresses while South Asia (including India) holds > only 170,365 of the IPv4/24 addresses. Yes, it may stem from this, but IP addresses aren't allocated by sub-region, but rather by network operators who show need for those resources. Indian entities have more than enough IP addresses at their disposal, as do all others across the globe, they just need to implement IPv6 as crying over the spilt milk of IPv4 isn't a useful exercise. > > 2) APNIC Executive Council (EC) has remained largely static and arguably > captured by the East Asians and Australians for almost a decade. In the > APNIC EC elections, the votes allotted to members are in proportion of the > IP addresses held by them. For example, if the IP holding is up to /22, the > member has 2 votes; and if the IP holding is between /13 and /10, then the > member has 32 votes. Effectively, due to the current skewed allocation of > IP addresses, representatives of India do not stand much of a chance in > APNIC EC elections. People who run for the APNIC (or any RIR Board) do NOT represent their nation state. They do it to help the Internet develop in their region and globally. Notably, India has had just one representative (for one > year) on the APNIC EC in the past decade. Additionally, while this system of > proportional voting creates a bias in favour of incumbent members who have > grandfathered large IP holdings, the system penalises those members who are > using IP addresses efficiently (for example by using Network Address > Translation) and also penalises the community that is yet to connect to the > Internet or has connected to the Internet late. > > 3) There are two options for redistribution of IP addresses. Actually there is no "option" for redistribution of IPv4 addresses. Are yoou really going to ask the entire planet to renumber their networks? The first is to > go through the APNIC PDP, which is to reform APNIC from within. The second > is to bypass APNIC and ask ITU to take over the RIR function. India seems to > have adopted the second path due to lack of trust in the first path, which > would be slow, bottom-up, and subject to resistance by incumbents. Further, > APNIC EC plays a crucial role in the consensus building process and I doubt > any reform of the APNIC EC will not be resisted. It is the SIG Chairs in the APNIC region who administer the PDP, so the EC doesn't have much to do with actual policy making besides endorsing that the PDP was followed. of course as individuals, they can be involved, but in a multi-equal stakeholder system, they have no more sway than any other individual. I don't believe that APNIC elections are subject to the PDP, though I may be wrong. Normally it is the bylaws of the RIR that set election policy. > > 4) With respect to the IANA transition, the APNIC secretariat drafted a > proposal and pushed that proposal top-down onto the community, which was > accepted as having consensus without any intelligent discussion in a > conference (APNIC38) at a remote location (please read transcripts of > APNIC38). This proposal suggests NTIA oversight should be replaced with a > SLA/AOC between ICANN and the NRO (combination of the 5 RIRs). An obvious > corollary of this extra added responsibility of oversight should be enhanced > accountability of the RIRs. Notably, APNIC is refusing to accept any > discussions on enhancing its accountability as part of the IANA transition > plan. Enhanced accountability of APNIC would include a measure of > representativeness in my opinion. By "Enhanced accountability" you mean not accountable to the people who hold the resources in the region? > > While I feel that India's concerns are genuine, I also feel the path adopted > is incorrect. If this proposal goes through as is, it can fragment the > Internet through three routes: First, through alternate (non-IETF) standards > emerging (from ITU) to address security concerns that are not inter-operable > with existing standards; I doubt there would be many network operators willing to take steps to implement non-interoperable standards! Second, through a broken non-unique allocation of > IP addresses where ITU and RIRs allocate IP addresses in parallel; Third, > through an alternate root zone emerging to address the names part of > Proposal 98. Neither of which has a snowball's chance of success. -- 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 Mon Oct 27 01:22:52 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:52:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04a501cff1a6$12e97a70$38bc6f50$@hserus.net> Below tagged [srs]. And speaking only for myself and not for any organization whatsoever. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 9:52 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: michael gurstein; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management I agree that India's strategy in Proposal 98 is not well thought out. However, I think India's concerns stem from the following: 1) IP addresses are not equitably distributed in the Asia Pacific region. The skewed allocation is reflected in the statistics that Eastern Asia holds 2,712,098 of the IPv4/24 addresses while South Asia (including India) holds only 170,365 of the IPv4/24 addresses. [srs] IP addresses are allocated according to need. And you forget that East Asia includes, for example, China, which has a surprisingly large amount of IP address space – and of course, they also have excellent broadband penetration. There are villages in South China that may have one bus a day to the big city but even those have broadband. Compare that to a much smaller country in South Asia like say Laos or Sri Lanka. This is not a “one country one fixed ration of IP addresses” setup – that might work for India’s public distribution system, but not much else. 2) APNIC Executive Council (EC) has remained largely static and arguably captured by the East Asians and Australians for almost a decade. In the APNIC EC elections, the votes allotted to members are in proportion of the IP addresses held by them. For example, if the IP holding is up to /22, the member has 2 votes; and if the IP holding is between /13 and /10, then the member has 32 votes. Effectively, due to the current skewed allocation of IP addresses, representatives of India do not stand much of a chance in APNIC EC elections. Notably, India has had just one representative (for one year) on the APNIC EC in the past decade. Additionally, while this system of proportional voting creates a bias in favour of incumbent members who have grandfathered large IP holdings, the system penalises those members who are using IP addresses efficiently (for example by using Network Address Translation) and also penalises the community that is yet to connect to the Internet or has connected to the Internet late. [srs] Having been to several APNIC meetings before, I was struck by the fact that so few Indian ISPs even bothered to travel to APNIC whereas I would find Vietnamese, Laotians, Sri Lankans, Pakistanis [etc] .. and even where Indians have stood for the EC before, they have often been “non technical CEO” type candidates. Possibly a different kind of person attending APNIC and gaining recognition by participating in the various SIGs might have a great chance for an EC role. I was myself on the board of APRICOT for several years while I was able to participate in it. Before you say India is from the global south and travel options are few and limited, let me also point you to the fact that there are plenty of people who apply for APNIC / APRICOT / SANOG fellowships from countries like Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, I might see three or four Indian fellowships, if at all. Mostly, in proportion to the number of Indian attendees at these events. 3) There are two options for redistribution of IP addresses. The first is to go through the APNIC PDP, which is to reform APNIC from within. The second is to bypass APNIC and ask ITU to take over the RIR function. India seems to have adopted the second path due to lack of trust in the first path, which would be slow, bottom-up, and subject to resistance by incumbents. Further, APNIC EC plays a crucial role in the consensus building process and I doubt any reform of the APNIC EC will not be resisted. [srs] India already accepted the APNIC process to the extent of [1] boosting participation by Indian ISPs in APNIC [2] forming a NIR (National Internet Registry) currently administered by NIXI etc. Also – how many APNIC meetings have you attended, or is this like our other “friend” from India who keeps criticizing ICANN without having attended a single ICANN meeting? 4) With respect to the IANA transition, the APNIC secretariat drafted a proposal and pushed that proposal top-down onto the community, which was accepted as having consensus without any intelligent discussion in a conference (APNIC38) at a remote location (please read transcripts of APNIC38). This proposal suggests NTIA oversight should be replaced with a SLA/AOC between ICANN and the NRO (combination of the 5 RIRs). An obvious corollary of this extra added responsibility of oversight should be enhanced accountability of the RIRs. Notably, APNIC is refusing to accept any discussions on enhancing its accountability as part of the IANA transition plan. Enhanced accountability of APNIC would include a measure of representativeness in my opinion. [srs] APNIC 38 was held last month in Brisbane. I assume people from the pacific islands, say, are not entitled to have a short trip to an APNIC meeting at least once? India is not more than a 4 or 5 hour flight from most other APNIC locations. While I feel that India's concerns are genuine, I also feel the path adopted is incorrect. If this proposal goes through as is, it can fragment the Internet through three routes: First, through alternate (non-IETF) standards emerging (from ITU) to address security concerns that are not inter-operable with existing standards; Second, through a broken non-unique allocation of IP addresses where ITU and RIRs allocate IP addresses in parallel; Third, through an alternate root zone emerging to address the names part of Proposal 98. [srs] The technical implementation remains to be seen. However, along with standards, may I also add that appropriate hardware / software (routing, tcp/ip stacks etc) that support these new standards will also have to be developed, especially if there is significant divergence from existing global standards. Additionally, some of India's concerns are driven by cyber security that can be addressed domestically and do not require regional/international reform. For example, domestic routing of traffic can be done by making the IXPs more efficient. The comments received in the TRAI (India's telecom regulator) consultations point towards numerous areas of improvement for NIXI (India's IXP). Similarly, domestic hosting of content can be facilitated by improving the privacy regime and intermediary liability regime. [srs] This is actually part of the problem. The other part is trust and competition issues among Indian ISPs that are also historically significant interconnection barriers. --srs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurcharya at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 03:48:20 2014 From: gurcharya at gmail.com (Guru Acharya) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:18:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In-line reply. Marked with [Guru]: Please take the reply in context of the fact that I do not support Proposal 98 - it is unarguably flawed; I am only trying to highlight the concerns that India may have taken into account. On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:50 AM, McTim wrote: > Hi Acharya, > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Guru Acharya > wrote: > > I agree that India's strategy in Proposal 98 is not well thought out. > > However, I think India's concerns stem from the following: > > > > 1) IP addresses are not equitably distributed in the Asia Pacific region. > > The skewed allocation is reflected in the statistics that Eastern Asia > holds > > 2,712,098 of the IPv4/24 addresses while South Asia (including India) > holds > > only 170,365 of the IPv4/24 addresses. > > > Yes, it may stem from this, but IP addresses aren't allocated by > sub-region, but rather by network operators who show need for those > resources. > > Indian entities have more than enough IP addresses at their disposal, > as do all others across the globe, they just need to implement IPv6 as > crying over the spilt milk of IPv4 isn't a useful exercise. > > [Guru]: I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in contrast to equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also "first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need". Put together, the resource is allocated to whoever establishes "need on a first-come-first-serve" basis. As a result, India's late adoption of the Internet exposes it to an almost empty resource pool of IPv4 addresses. Therefore, it is natural for India to question the existing institutional arrangement. Obviously those who have grand-fathered these resources will not suffer due to the first-come-first-serve allocation and therefore do not have the same reason to question the institutional arrangement as do late entrants. Note that I am not suggesting an alternate institutional arrangement to replace the existing one. Specifically, I am not suggesting fixed rations for sub-regions or nations as may invariably be introduced in many straw man arguments. I am only merely suggesting the reasons why some people may consider the current institution broken. IPv6 is a distant dream that will overcome the artificial scarcity and will understandably resolve the current situation. Im talking about IPv4. I agree that allocation of IPv4 may be spilt milk for some, but its not nice when others still have a full glass of milk in front of them just because they were born first. > > > > 2) APNIC Executive Council (EC) has remained largely static and arguably > > captured by the East Asians and Australians for almost a decade. In the > > APNIC EC elections, the votes allotted to members are in proportion of > the > > IP addresses held by them. For example, if the IP holding is up to /22, > the > > member has 2 votes; and if the IP holding is between /13 and /10, then > the > > member has 32 votes. Effectively, due to the current skewed allocation > of > > IP addresses, representatives of India do not stand much of a chance in > > APNIC EC elections. > > People who run for the APNIC (or any RIR Board) do NOT represent their > nation state. They do it to help the Internet develop in their region > and globally. > > > [Guru]: I agree that representatives on the APNIC EC do not represent their nations but an Indian will unarguably have a better understanding of the requirements/problems of domestic private players from India. Further, who will represent the people who are yet to connect to the internet (many such from India) if representation is limited to current resource holders? > Notably, India has had just one representative (for one > > year) on the APNIC EC in the past decade. Additionally, while this > system of > > proportional voting creates a bias in favour of incumbent members who > have > > grandfathered large IP holdings, the system penalises those members who > are > > using IP addresses efficiently (for example by using Network Address > > Translation) and also penalises the community that is yet to connect to > the > > Internet or has connected to the Internet late. > > > > 3) There are two options for redistribution of IP addresses. > > > Actually there is no "option" for redistribution of IPv4 addresses. > Are yoou really going to ask the entire planet to renumber their > networks? > > [Guru]: Agreed. I agree that "redistribution" sounds rather drastic. Please take it to mean any instrument that you deem fit for fixing the present institutional arrangement. > > The first is to > > go through the APNIC PDP, which is to reform APNIC from within. The > second > > is to bypass APNIC and ask ITU to take over the RIR function. India > seems to > > have adopted the second path due to lack of trust in the first path, > which > > would be slow, bottom-up, and subject to resistance by incumbents. > Further, > > APNIC EC plays a crucial role in the consensus building process and I > doubt > > any reform of the APNIC EC will not be resisted. > > > It is the SIG Chairs in the APNIC region who administer the PDP, so > the EC doesn't have much to do with actual policy making besides > endorsing that the PDP was followed. of course as individuals, they > can be involved, but in a multi-equal stakeholder system, they have no > more sway than any other individual. > > I don't believe that APNIC elections are subject to the PDP, though I > may be wrong. Normally it is the bylaws of the RIR that set election > policy. > > [Guru]: Either way, I'm guessing the Indian government perceived the ITU route to be easier to participate in than the PDP route. Maybe, this implies that the PDP needs to be more receptive to nation-states as stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). Maybe the PDP can be improved/fine-tuned to address the concerns of nation-states as stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). > > > > 4) With respect to the IANA transition, the APNIC secretariat drafted a > > proposal and pushed that proposal top-down onto the community, which was > > accepted as having consensus without any intelligent discussion in a > > conference (APNIC38) at a remote location (please read transcripts of > > APNIC38). This proposal suggests NTIA oversight should be replaced with a > > SLA/AOC between ICANN and the NRO (combination of the 5 RIRs). An obvious > > corollary of this extra added responsibility of oversight should be > enhanced > > accountability of the RIRs. Notably, APNIC is refusing to accept any > > discussions on enhancing its accountability as part of the IANA > transition > > plan. Enhanced accountability of APNIC would include a measure of > > representativeness in my opinion. > > By "Enhanced accountability" you mean not accountable to the people > who hold the resources in the region? > > > [Guru]: I mean accountable not just to the current resource holders but also to the future resources holders. Yes. The millions of future resource holders from India. > > > > > While I feel that India's concerns are genuine, I also feel the path > adopted > > is incorrect. If this proposal goes through as is, it can fragment the > > Internet through three routes: First, through alternate (non-IETF) > standards > > emerging (from ITU) to address security concerns that are not > inter-operable > > with existing standards; > > I doubt there would be many network operators willing to take steps to > implement non-interoperable standards! > > > Second, through a broken non-unique allocation of > > IP addresses where ITU and RIRs allocate IP addresses in parallel; Third, > > through an alternate root zone emerging to address the names part of > > Proposal 98. > > > Neither of which has a snowball's chance of success. > > -- > 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 03:57:51 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:27:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Guru Acharya wrote: > [Guru]: > ​... > PDP needs to be more receptive to nation-states as stakeholders (yes yes, > on an equal footing as other stakeholders). Maybe the PDP can be > improved/fine-tuned to address the concerns of nation-states as > stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). ​On this I agree and hope that the Internet Community takes note. Sivasubramanian M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 27 04:15:09 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:15:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <544DFF0D.8000208@digsys.bg> This has nothing to do with BGP and routing. And not much with "status quo-ists" (an interesting twist in the language). It is all about power hungry government/industrial behemoth wannabees who are advised by incompetent "experts" on matters where they have no authority. Technically, there is no issue of whole if India or whatever other state "unites" (if they can, technically and politically) and announcing themselves to the world as one AS. The rest of the Internet could not care less... In essence, it is monopoly telcos longing for the old times of total control. They tried to Extend, Embrace and Extinguish the Internet and now begin to realize this is an impossible task. If those types want to have an telecom network under their own control, why not just build one? Then, they will be able to control the address and resource allocation there as well as who and when can use it. The only challenge here is to find a way to force everyone, or anyone, to use it. It is amazing how much resources are wasted every day on 'hot topics' like these. The other sad consequence is that the ITU, an organization that was once going well on standards gets put into this political nonsense and loses any credibility. Daniel On 26.10.14 23:58, michael gurstein wrote: > */[MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with > many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… /* > > instructs the Secretary General > 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and > intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to > develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different > countries are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution > of IP addresses accordingly; > 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including > International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies > for allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including > naming, numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, > just, democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities > designated with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning > resources and dealing with day-to-day technical and operational matters; > 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that > addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, > resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance > on technical capabilities to developing countries; > 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for > the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region > takes place within the country; > 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic > originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; > 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the > network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of > communication; > 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the > weaknesses of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and > recommend secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the > requirements of future networks in view of the envisaged manifold > increase in traffic and end devices in near future in the light of IoT > and M2M needs; > 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 27 04:57:25 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:57:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] ITU - Internet related Resolutions In-Reply-To: References: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> <2BF76365-6403-4233-95DE-1A1038A30EE3@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <544E08F5.3000805@cafonso.ca> The Saudis led, together with Iran, the literal destruction of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, on the grounds that "everything that had to be said and decided is already in the Tunis Agenda" (like a sacred text...). frt rgds --c.a. On 10/27/2014 12:59 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > That's unclear. I'm sure some would say so, but their objections were not, by and large, seconded by other countries, while the OECD countries (and some African countries) we're supporting each other's positions in the dialog. > > > -Bill > > >> On Oct 27, 2014, at 11:08, "Adam" wrote: >> >> >>> On Oct 27, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 26, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Adam wrote: >>>> >>>> A document combining various Internet related resolutions being considered at the ITU Plenipotentiary is available on WCITLeaks.org. These working docs not available through the ITU's website, seem to require ties account. >>>> >>>> Internet related >>> >>> We got through a good bit of this on Saturday afternoon, though with little to no substantive outcome, because of irreconcilable differences between Saudi Arabia and the OECD countries. Debate continues this (Monday) evening. >> >> >> Is Saudi speaking for a large block of countries? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> -Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> discuss at 1net.org >>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Oct 27 05:33:43 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:03:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] ITU - Internet related Resolutions In-Reply-To: <544E08F5.3000805@cafonso.ca> References: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> <2BF76365-6403-4233-95DE-1A1038A30EE3@glocom.ac.jp> <544E08F5.3000805@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: ITU bureaucracy makes for some very strange bedfellows. Saudis siding with Iran of all countries .. --srs (iPad) > On 27-Oct-2014, at 14:27, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > The Saudis led, together with Iran, the literal destruction of the CSTD > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, on the grounds that "everything > that had to be said and decided is already in the Tunis Agenda" (like a > sacred text...). > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > >> On 10/27/2014 12:59 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: >> >> That's unclear. I'm sure some would say so, but their objections were not, by and large, seconded by other countries, while the OECD countries (and some African countries) we're supporting each other's positions in the dialog. >> >> >> -Bill >> >> >>> On Oct 27, 2014, at 11:08, "Adam" wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 27, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 26, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Adam wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A document combining various Internet related resolutions being considered at the ITU Plenipotentiary is available on WCITLeaks.org. These working docs not available through the ITU's website, seem to require ties account. >>>>> >>>>> Internet related >>>> >>>> We got through a good bit of this on Saturday afternoon, though with little to no substantive outcome, because of irreconcilable differences between Saudi Arabia and the OECD countries. Debate continues this (Monday) evening. >>> >>> >>> Is Saudi speaking for a large block of countries? >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> -Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> discuss mailing list >>>> discuss at 1net.org >>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Oct 27 05:34:09 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:04:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1A4A6713-615F-4DD4-B170-F9A60F79EEA6@hserus.net> Always scope for improvement I dare say. --srs (iPad) > On 27-Oct-2014, at 13:27, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Guru Acharya wrote: >> [Guru]: ​... PDP needs to be more receptive to nation-states as stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). Maybe the PDP can be improved/fine-tuned to address the concerns of nation-states as stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). > > ​On this I agree and hope that the Internet Community takes note. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Oct 27 05:36:06 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:06:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8A4EB26E-2063-4B3A-A819-9283DD5EAA8F@hserus.net> V6 might have been a distant dream in the pre iana days .. It is around and aggressively being deployed and supported. Also funnily enough there aren't that many cases of block voting, and you can easily see many examples of Australians or Japanese voting for a Singaporean, say. --srs (iPad) > On 27-Oct-2014, at 13:18, Guru Acharya wrote: > > In-line reply. Marked with [Guru]: > > Please take the reply in context of the fact that I do not support Proposal 98 - it is unarguably flawed; I am only trying to highlight the concerns that India may have taken into account. > >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:50 AM, McTim wrote: >> Hi Acharya, >> >> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Guru Acharya wrote: >> > I agree that India's strategy in Proposal 98 is not well thought out. >> > However, I think India's concerns stem from the following: >> > >> > 1) IP addresses are not equitably distributed in the Asia Pacific region. >> > The skewed allocation is reflected in the statistics that Eastern Asia holds >> > 2,712,098 of the IPv4/24 addresses while South Asia (including India) holds >> > only 170,365 of the IPv4/24 addresses. >> >> >> Yes, it may stem from this, but IP addresses aren't allocated by >> sub-region, but rather by network operators who show need for those >> resources. >> >> Indian entities have more than enough IP addresses at their disposal, >> as do all others across the globe, they just need to implement IPv6 as >> crying over the spilt milk of IPv4 isn't a useful exercise. > > [Guru]: I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in contrast to equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also "first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need". Put together, the resource is allocated to whoever establishes "need on a first-come-first-serve" basis. As a result, India's late adoption of the Internet exposes it to an almost empty resource pool of IPv4 addresses. Therefore, it is natural for India to question the existing institutional arrangement. Obviously those who have grand-fathered these resources will not suffer due to the first-come-first-serve allocation and therefore do not have the same reason to question the institutional arrangement as do late entrants. > > Note that I am not suggesting an alternate institutional arrangement to replace the existing one. Specifically, I am not suggesting fixed rations for sub-regions or nations as may invariably be introduced in many straw man arguments. I am only merely suggesting the reasons why some people may consider the current institution broken. > > IPv6 is a distant dream that will overcome the artificial scarcity and will understandably resolve the current situation. Im talking about IPv4. I agree that allocation of IPv4 may be spilt milk for some, but its not nice when others still have a full glass of milk in front of them just because they were born first. > >> > >> > 2) APNIC Executive Council (EC) has remained largely static and arguably >> > captured by the East Asians and Australians for almost a decade. In the >> > APNIC EC elections, the votes allotted to members are in proportion of the >> > IP addresses held by them. For example, if the IP holding is up to /22, the >> > member has 2 votes; and if the IP holding is between /13 and /10, then the >> > member has 32 votes. Effectively, due to the current skewed allocation of >> > IP addresses, representatives of India do not stand much of a chance in >> > APNIC EC elections. >> >> People who run for the APNIC (or any RIR Board) do NOT represent their >> nation state. They do it to help the Internet develop in their region >> and globally. > > [Guru]: I agree that representatives on the APNIC EC do not represent their nations but an Indian will unarguably have a better understanding of the requirements/problems of domestic private players from India. Further, who will represent the people who are yet to connect to the internet (many such from India) if representation is limited to current resource holders? > > >> Notably, India has had just one representative (for one >> > year) on the APNIC EC in the past decade. Additionally, while this system of >> > proportional voting creates a bias in favour of incumbent members who have >> > grandfathered large IP holdings, the system penalises those members who are >> > using IP addresses efficiently (for example by using Network Address >> > Translation) and also penalises the community that is yet to connect to the >> > Internet or has connected to the Internet late. >> > >> > 3) There are two options for redistribution of IP addresses. >> >> >> Actually there is no "option" for redistribution of IPv4 addresses. >> Are yoou really going to ask the entire planet to renumber their >> networks? > > [Guru]: Agreed. I agree that "redistribution" sounds rather drastic. Please take it to mean any instrument that you deem fit for fixing the present institutional arrangement. > >> >> The first is to >> > go through the APNIC PDP, which is to reform APNIC from within. The second >> > is to bypass APNIC and ask ITU to take over the RIR function. India seems to >> > have adopted the second path due to lack of trust in the first path, which >> > would be slow, bottom-up, and subject to resistance by incumbents. Further, >> > APNIC EC plays a crucial role in the consensus building process and I doubt >> > any reform of the APNIC EC will not be resisted. >> >> >> It is the SIG Chairs in the APNIC region who administer the PDP, so >> the EC doesn't have much to do with actual policy making besides >> endorsing that the PDP was followed. of course as individuals, they >> can be involved, but in a multi-equal stakeholder system, they have no >> more sway than any other individual. >> >> I don't believe that APNIC elections are subject to the PDP, though I >> may be wrong. Normally it is the bylaws of the RIR that set election >> policy. > > [Guru]: Either way, I'm guessing the Indian government perceived the ITU route to be easier to participate in than the PDP route. Maybe, this implies that the PDP needs to be more receptive to nation-states as stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). Maybe the PDP can be improved/fine-tuned to address the concerns of nation-states as stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). > >> > >> > 4) With respect to the IANA transition, the APNIC secretariat drafted a >> > proposal and pushed that proposal top-down onto the community, which was >> > accepted as having consensus without any intelligent discussion in a >> > conference (APNIC38) at a remote location (please read transcripts of >> > APNIC38). This proposal suggests NTIA oversight should be replaced with a >> > SLA/AOC between ICANN and the NRO (combination of the 5 RIRs). An obvious >> > corollary of this extra added responsibility of oversight should be enhanced >> > accountability of the RIRs. Notably, APNIC is refusing to accept any >> > discussions on enhancing its accountability as part of the IANA transition >> > plan. Enhanced accountability of APNIC would include a measure of >> > representativeness in my opinion. >> >> By "Enhanced accountability" you mean not accountable to the people >> who hold the resources in the region? > > [Guru]: I mean accountable not just to the current resource holders but also to the future resources holders. Yes. The millions of future resource holders from India. > >> >> > >> > While I feel that India's concerns are genuine, I also feel the path adopted >> > is incorrect. If this proposal goes through as is, it can fragment the >> > Internet through three routes: First, through alternate (non-IETF) standards >> > emerging (from ITU) to address security concerns that are not inter-operable >> > with existing standards; >> >> I doubt there would be many network operators willing to take steps to >> implement non-interoperable standards! >> >> >> Second, through a broken non-unique allocation of >> > IP addresses where ITU and RIRs allocate IP addresses in parallel; Third, >> > through an alternate root zone emerging to address the names part of >> > Proposal 98. >> >> >> Neither of which has a snowball's chance of success. >> >> -- >> 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 nhklein at gmx.net Sun Oct 26 09:03:55 2014 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:03:55 +0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Maintaining Systems In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <544CF13B.5070909@gmx.net> +1 Norbert Klein On 10/25/2014 10:09 PM, DeeDee Halleck wrote: > http://www.newsweek.com/assange-google-not-what-it-seems-279447 > > a useful read. > xx > DeeDee > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 05:55:53 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:25:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <1A4A6713-615F-4DD4-B170-F9A60F79EEA6@hserus.net> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <1A4A6713-615F-4DD4-B170-F9A60F79EEA6@hserus.net> Message-ID: The perception of block voting apart, if a country, let's say India or China, each with over a billion in population, has some concerns to be addressed by IANA or ICANN, for e.g. on requirement of numbers or an exceptionally pressing issue the process could respond via an ad hoc track, which as on date does not exist, but nevertheless, isn't impossible. Not that I know of any such precedent, but I have a feeling that quick face to face meetings could happen - either in the style of Wolfgang Kleinwaechter's & a few from Civil Society with some Representatives of Government during IGF Kenya (if I recall well) or by a face face interaction of designated Government Representative with the Chair / CEOs of the organizations responsible. I feel that such a possibility exists in case a National Government has an extra ordinary concern that requires to be quickly resolved. In such situations, the Community would trust the Chair / CEO's judgement and any ratification process could also happen on a fast track. All this is to say that there is an inherent flexibility within the Internet Community processes, which by comparison, would not exist in an ITU like inter-governmental environment at all. Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Always scope for improvement I dare say. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 27-Oct-2014, at 13:27, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Guru Acharya wrote: > >> [Guru]: >> ​... >> PDP needs to be more receptive to nation-states as stakeholders (yes >> yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). Maybe the PDP can be >> improved/fine-tuned to address the concerns of nation-states as >> stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). > > > ​On this I agree and hope that the Internet Community takes note. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 09:33:01 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:03:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] ITU - Internet related Resolutions In-Reply-To: References: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> <2BF76365-6403-4233-95DE-1A1038A30EE3@glocom.ac.jp> <544E08F5.3000805@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I am curious to know why Brazil is on the side of Russia, despite embracing the multi-stakeholder model, demonstrated recently by Dilma Roussef's support for NetMundial and despite the proven success of nic.br's multi-stakeholder model, despite the benevolent influence of Brazilian Community Leaders like Harmut Glaser. What caused Brazil to be part of IBSA and why is it on the wrong side? Sivasubramanian M On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Adam wrote: > > Is Saudi speaking for a large block of countries? > > In so far as lines are drawn, here’s what I’ve observed this evening: > > On one side: > The Internets > United Kingdom > Bulgaria > Japan > Canada > USA > Australia > Ghana > Nigeria > New Zealand > Grenada > > On the other side: > Saudi Arabia > Argentina > Brazil > Paraguay > Oman > Russia > > Wildcard: > India > > Helpful grammar authoritarians, who are striving to make evil documents at > least marginally intelligible: > Bulgaria > Sweden > > Meeting concluded with an admonishment by the chair to Saudi Arabia to > consider limiting its contributions to ones which “reflect present reality.” > > The Internet-issues ad-hoc reconvenes at 18:00 on Wednesday, unless the > secretariat is able to find an earlier time. > > Fact-checking the idiocy that’s spouted in this room is surprisingly > difficult, given 85% packet loss getting out of the building. One could be > cynical about that, but I’ll resist the urge. > > -Bill > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 09:35:35 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:35:35 -0700 Subject: FW: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and TweedledeeWAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <0aa501cff14b$0c2a1740$247e45c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0e7001cff1ea$e39a8670$aacf9350$@gmail.com> From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 3:57 AM To: michael gurstein; 'David Cake' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'McTim'; 'JNC Forum' Subject: RE: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and TweedledeeWAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Michael: since I don't subscribe to the BestBits list, and since I am mentioned by name in a post to that list, I would appreciate it if you would forward this reply to that list, if you consider that appropriate. I've been asked to explain why I'm so keen on the ITU taking over more control over Internet governance. Actually, I'm mostly keen to find ways to reduce the control over Internet governance currently excercised by the US government and by dominant private companies, most of which are US companies. As an input to discussions, I have indeed suggested that ITU could, for some specific issues, replace the US government's current oversight with a weaker type of oversight. But that's just one of the many options that I think worth considering. Regarding ITU, I find it incongrous that some people appear to think of it as an foe of the Internet. In reality, it was the ITU's 1988 ITRs that first allowed unrestricted use of leased lines by private companies, which was instrumental in facilitating the growth of the Internet. The subsequent GATT (now WTO) agreements reinforced that. ITU-T Recommendation X.509, first approved in 1988, provides the basis for secure Internet communications. More recently, ITU standards such as xDLS and compression are important facilitators of Internet expansion, as are the agreements made in ITU regarding the unlicensed frequencies used for WiFi. Which is not to say that everything that ITU has done is good. But I also find it incongrous that people don't equally criticize other international organizations whose impact on the Internet is significant, such as WIPO, where copyright tends to be reinforced, rather than adapted as many think it should (greater allowance for private copying and shortening the length of copyright protection). Or WTO, which was used to forge ACTA. Again, not everything that those organizations do is bad. Like many complex organizations, including national goverments and private companies, those organizations do things that I agree with and things that I don't agree with. My view is that states do have a role and responsiblity with respect to public policy matters. That's a mainstream view, because it is enunciated in the Tunis Agenda and it was confirmed by Netmundial and by the WSIS+10 High Level Meeting. The mechanisms that currently exist under which states carry out their responsibilities are imperfect, both at the national level, and at the international level, and those mechansims should be improved. Greater multi-stakholder consultation is for sure a way to improve those mechanisms. But replacing those mechanisms with the so-called "equal footing" multi-stakeholder model, which in effect gives veto power to private companies, is not, in my view, an improvement. Formal intergovernmental mechanisms are subject to parliamentary control, and, in particular treaties are, in most countries, subject to ratification by national parliaments. It is harder to establsh democratic control over informal mechanisms, contracts of adhesion, and restrictions imposed by code (as in "code is law"). Returning to ITU again, in my experience, it can be a useful forum for discussing certain issues, and even for reaching agreement at the international level. For example, to lower the price of mobile roaming, and/or to foster greater transparency in wholesale and retail pricing. I find it incongrous that OECD countries appear to oppose such measures, and that not all of civil society organizaitons support such pro-consumer measures. Further, I believe that the current provision in the ITU Constitution on secrecy (meaning privacy) of international telecommunications could be revised so as to make it clear that current mass surveillance practices are unacceptable. I'm surprised that those who oppose mass surveillance have not picked up on that. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: dimanche, 26. octobre 2014 19:31 To: 'David Cake' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'McTim'; 'JNC Forum' Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and TweedledeeWAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations David, From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:35 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 26 Oct 2014, at 7:17 am, michael gurstein wrote: and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. NO, the opposite is true. The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a series of MS entities and processes. It is those who insist that gov't be in charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)" [MG>] well maybe those "who insist that gov't be in charge" believe whatever it is you say they believe (you should ask them) but not sure what that has to do with my comments... Well, you could always ask your JNC colleague Richard Hill about why he was so keen on the ITU taking on more control over Internet governance, I'm sure he will be happy to explain. If you, or the JNC generally, believe that government led, multi-lateral, fora such as the ITU, are also inappropriate for transnational Internet government, I'm sure there are many who would appreciate clarifying your position. [MG>] I have no specialized knowledge or expertise in the details of transnational governance. My discussion was at the level of principles and governance models the detailed application of which I would leave to those (such as Richard Hill) with such specialized knowledge. My own position would be that such governance should take place in the form and in the context most likely to reflect the broader democratic values. I would not either rule in or rule out any specific context prima facie simply because it was or was not a UN agency for example (as seems to be the case for MSists/anti-Democracy proponents). In any case my overall principle would be how the venue and process would most clearly reflect democratic values and processes and for many cases how these activities might further promote and support democratic processes and values. I presume that MSists/anti-Democracy proponents would adopt a similar position concerning MSism i.e. how the particular venue (for example the proposed WEF as a venue) would promote MSism i.e. governance by self-selected elites and further undermining of traditional approaches to Democratic values and governance processes. (BTW, I'm still waiting for the argument from our distinguished CS colleagues towards the HK demonstrators on how MSism will be a "evolutionary enhancement" of the democracy that they have so bravely been advocating. Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy-cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only one- No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any other area of governance. [MG>] good for you... but you should take you nose out of the router box and take a look at http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US%20Steer com%20Reelection%20Letter%20-%20signed%20by%20J%206-12-14.pdf I find myself truly baffled as to what you find so sinister about USG support of open government initiatives. Is this just circular reasoning, whereby it is deemed to be bad because the USG is doing it, which can then be taken as an example of the USGs sinister agenda? I know the open government folks in Australia, and they are terrific, the open government movement is something I would have thought CS was unreservedly in favour of, but apparently not.... [MG>] I was in this casual listing simply responding to McTim's quite ill-informed comment that MSism is not being applied in any other area of "governance" however I think my inclusion here of Open Government initiatives in this listing was over-hasty. In fact OG/OGD/OGP activities differ quite significantly from IG MSism in that for OG the MS activities are clearly confined to advisory and accountability processes and not decision making.. A further difference is that, at least at the moment there is no significant corporate involvement in the OGP MS processes (a source of concern it should be said to certain of the governmental proponents of OGP). (I have blogged quite extensively on OG activities .) http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014 etc.etc. Yes, corporate investment in nations with weak governance raises a host of policy questions, and the USG has a position on this. Are there specific relevant points in regards to Internet governance, or transnational governance in general, that you are trying to make here? [MG>] no, this is simply a listing pointing to other areas where attempts are being made to implant MSism as a mechanism for global governance. There was a very extensive documentation recently on an attempt including through very heavy corporate involvement, NGO greenwashing, policy log-rolling in favour of corporate interests from various specific national governments, and so on to derail (or rather reconstruct in a MS format) a series of multi-lateral agreements and I believe treaty processes for controlling of deforestation. The result was, rather than a treaty there was a toothless MS governance framework which postponed effective action by at least a decade, made a few NGO/consultants and their corporate clients rich and effectively screwed the rest of us by preventing intervention into a highly destructive (to the common good) lucrative (to the multinational logging companies) status quo of forest cover destruction--(sound familiar at all). (I can't put my finger on the references at the moment but perhaps someone reading this will pass along the relevant link.) They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism. We saw that from WSIS thru NetMundial. CS is in favour of MSism, but that doesn't mean the status quo. Look at, for example, the moves through NetMundial and within ICANN to bring human rights explicitly into the policy processes of technical organisations, largely led by CS (and resisted by the technical community). [MG>] some of CS is in favour of MSism. Full-throated almost messianic support for MSism within CS is (thankfully) only confined to the IG space at the moment. The technical community may be resisting human rights in the IG space because of their built in blinders and general policy narrow-mindedess but the corporate folks have no problem with trading off support for HR as in "freedom of expression" and "freedom of assembly" for CS support since it costs them nothing and gains them a huge degree of credibility including with their staff and major market demographics. (It also not coincidentally fits quite well with their "open networks" business models and global marketing strategies.) Just see what happens with that support when, as is conventionally promoted by CS, the inclusion of "social justice" as a Human Right is promoted. I'm still waiting for any of the conventional CS groups in the IG space to come out with a strong position arguing for human rights and social justice i.e. human rights not just for the white Developed Country middle class folks but also as it benefits everyone else in the world. M Cheers 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 10:30:46 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:00:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] ITU - Internet related Resolutions In-Reply-To: References: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> <2BF76365-6403-4233-95DE-1A1038A30EE3@glocom.ac.jp> <544E08F5.3000805@cafonso.ca> <94CC0A43-7108-4CBB-AB33-9CA77864480E@isoc-cr.org> Message-ID: Thanks Bill and Carlos. You have explained it so succinctly. Sivasubramanian M On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > Other fora don't have a 150-year-old secretariat with a declining budget, > full of bureaucrats desperate to see that budget not hit zero before their > retirement accounts are fully funded. > > > -Bill > > > On Oct 27, 2014, at 22:51, "Carlos Raúl G." wrote: > > I ask myself the same question: how different for Governments is the ITU > forum from other Fora where they seems perfectly happy with the bottom up > MS model? > > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > +506 8335 2487 > Enviado desde mi iPhone > > El 27/10/2014, a las 7:33, Sivasubramanian M > escribió: > > I am curious to know why Brazil is on the side of Russia, despite > embracing the multi-stakeholder model, demonstrated recently by Dilma > Roussef's support for NetMundial and despite the proven success of nic.br's > multi-stakeholder model, despite the benevolent influence of Brazilian > Community Leaders like Harmut Glaser. What caused Brazil to be part of IBSA > and why is it on the wrong side? > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> > On Oct 26, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Adam wrote: >> > Is Saudi speaking for a large block of countries? >> >> In so far as lines are drawn, here’s what I’ve observed this evening: >> >> On one side: >> The Internets >> United Kingdom >> Bulgaria >> Japan >> Canada >> USA >> Australia >> Ghana >> Nigeria >> New Zealand >> Grenada >> >> On the other side: >> Saudi Arabia >> Argentina >> Brazil >> Paraguay >> Oman >> Russia >> >> Wildcard: >> India >> >> Helpful grammar authoritarians, who are striving to make evil documents >> at least marginally intelligible: >> Bulgaria >> Sweden >> >> Meeting concluded with an admonishment by the chair to Saudi Arabia to >> consider limiting its contributions to ones which “reflect present reality.” >> >> The Internet-issues ad-hoc reconvenes at 18:00 on Wednesday, unless the >> secretariat is able to find an earlier time. >> >> Fact-checking the idiocy that’s spouted in this room is surprisingly >> difficult, given 85% packet loss getting out of the building. One could be >> cynical about that, but I’ll resist the urge. >> >> -Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 27 10:38:12 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:38:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Guru Acharya wrote: > In-line reply. Marked with [Guru]: > > Please take the reply in context of the fact that I do not support Proposal > 98 - it is unarguably flawed; I am only trying to highlight the concerns > that India may have taken into account. Understood. >> > > [Guru]: I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in contrast > to equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also > "first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need". Put together, the resource > is allocated to whoever establishes "need on a first-come-first-serve" > basis. As a result, India's late adoption of the Internet exposes it to an > almost empty resource pool of IPv4 addresses. It wasn't almost empty when India first got online. Everyone is in the same boat in terms of constrained resources. There is no "inequity" when everyone suffers equally. See below: Therefore, it is natural for > India to question the existing institutional arrangement. Obviously those > who have grand-fathered these resources will not suffer due to the > first-come-first-serve allocation and therefore do not have the same reason > to question the institutional arrangement as do late entrants. > > Note that I am not suggesting an alternate institutional arrangement to > replace the existing one. Specifically, I am not suggesting fixed rations > for sub-regions or nations as may invariably be introduced in many straw man > arguments. I am only merely suggesting the reasons why some people may > consider the current institution broken. > > IPv6 is a distant dream that will overcome the artificial scarcity and will > understandably resolve the current situation. Im talking about IPv4. I agree > that allocation of IPv4 may be spilt milk for some, but its not nice when > others still have a full glass of milk in front of them just because they > were born first. But they have drunk their milk (resources are in use). What you are saying is analogous to saying our grandparents and parents used up all of the fossil fuels and it is unfair that we are constrained to use what is left!! > >> >> > >> > 2) APNIC Executive Council (EC) has remained largely static and arguably >> > captured by the East Asians and Australians for almost a decade. In the >> > APNIC EC elections, the votes allotted to members are in proportion of >> > the >> > IP addresses held by them. For example, if the IP holding is up to /22, >> > the >> > member has 2 votes; and if the IP holding is between /13 and /10, then >> > the >> > member has 32 votes. Effectively, due to the current skewed allocation >> > of >> > IP addresses, representatives of India do not stand much of a chance in >> > APNIC EC elections. >> >> People who run for the APNIC (or any RIR Board) do NOT represent their >> nation state. They do it to help the Internet develop in their region >> and globally. >> >> > > [Guru]: I agree that representatives on the APNIC EC do not represent their > nations but an Indian will unarguably have a better understanding of the > requirements/problems of domestic private players from India. Further, who > will represent the people who are yet to connect to the internet (many such > from India) if representation is limited to current resource holders? People who run for positions of authority in RIRs have, in my experience always been interested in the development of the Internet for all and the health of the network going forward. There is NO "representation" inherent in these roles. In the AFRINIC region there are "regional" seats, but these people are charged with stewardship of the resources for the entire AFRINIC region, not their own sub-region. > >> >> >> Actually there is no "option" for redistribution of IPv4 addresses. >> Are yoou really going to ask the entire planet to renumber their >> networks? >> > > [Guru]: Agreed. I agree that "redistribution" sounds rather drastic. Please > take it to mean any instrument that you deem fit for fixing the present > institutional arrangement. What the ITU has been after for more than a decade is a role in v6 allocation on a per country basis. However, that won't "fix" anything, it will only break the current routing regime, so will be ignored by networks. > >> >> >> The first is to >> > go through the APNIC PDP, which is to reform APNIC from within. The >> > second >> > is to bypass APNIC and ask ITU to take over the RIR function. India >> > seems to >> > have adopted the second path due to lack of trust in the first path, >> > which >> > would be slow, bottom-up, and subject to resistance by incumbents. >> > Further, >> > APNIC EC plays a crucial role in the consensus building process and I >> > doubt >> > any reform of the APNIC EC will not be resisted. >> >> >> It is the SIG Chairs in the APNIC region who administer the PDP, so >> the EC doesn't have much to do with actual policy making besides >> endorsing that the PDP was followed. of course as individuals, they >> can be involved, but in a multi-equal stakeholder system, they have no >> more sway than any other individual. >> >> I don't believe that APNIC elections are subject to the PDP, though I >> may be wrong. Normally it is the bylaws of the RIR that set election >> policy. >> > > [Guru]: Either way, I'm guessing the Indian government perceived the ITU > route to be easier to participate in than the PDP route. Maybe, this implies > that the PDP needs to be more receptive to nation-states as stakeholders > (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). Maybe the PDP can be > improved/fine-tuned to address the concerns of nation-states as stakeholders > (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). Well, they are welcome to participate now. I liken it to the old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink" In both Europe and Africa there are efforts to pull government policy makers into the process. i imagine there is something similar in the Asia-Pacific region. > >> >> > >> > 4) With respect to the IANA transition, the APNIC secretariat drafted a >> > proposal and pushed that proposal top-down onto the community, which was >> > accepted as having consensus without any intelligent discussion in a >> > conference (APNIC38) at a remote location (please read transcripts of >> > APNIC38). This proposal suggests NTIA oversight should be replaced with >> > a >> > SLA/AOC between ICANN and the NRO (combination of the 5 RIRs). An >> > obvious >> > corollary of this extra added responsibility of oversight should be >> > enhanced >> > accountability of the RIRs. Notably, APNIC is refusing to accept any >> > discussions on enhancing its accountability as part of the IANA >> > transition >> > plan. Enhanced accountability of APNIC would include a measure of >> > representativeness in my opinion. >> >> By "Enhanced accountability" you mean not accountable to the people >> who hold the resources in the region? >> >> > > [Guru]: I mean accountable not just to the current resource holders but also > to the future resources holders. Yes. The millions of future resource > holders from India. In theory, and in fact, people without any resources are welcome at the policy making table. I have never held any resources personally, but have participated in 3 RIR PDPs. -- 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 ginger at paque.net Mon Oct 27 13:28:31 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:28:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Webinar] Evidence and measurement in IG: What sort of data and numbers are we talking about? Message-ID: Our October IG webinar is taking place tomorrow, Tuesday at 12h GMT, and will address an important issue: *Evidence and measurement in IG: What sort of data and numbers are we talking about?* *Although the Internet is an engineering artefact, we have very little data relevant for IG. In cybersecurity, for example, we are still in doubt about the number of threats and the size of the losses incurred. The same applies in other IG fields. Without understanding the scope of the problem, it is difficult to discuss possible solutions. What can be done to bring more evidence in IG, using what concrete tools and techniques? How should an IG observatory, which would gather and prepare such evidence, function?* To join in, read the announcement below or at http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/webinar-measurement-and-evidence-ig, and follow the link to the registration page. Hope to see many of you tomorrow! Is this email not displaying correctly? View this email in your browser *October IG webinar:* *Evidence and measurement in IG:What sort of data and numbers are we talking about?* Dear friends, We would like to invite you to our October IG webinar, on Tuesday 28th, at 12:00 GMT, on *Evidence and measurement in IG: What sort of data and numbers are we talking about?* Paradoxically, although the Internet is an engineering artefact, we have very little data relevant for Internet Governance. In cybersecurity, for example, we are still in doubt about the number of threats and the size of the losses incurred. The same applies in other IG fields. Without understanding the scope of the problem, it is difficult to discuss possible solutions. What can be done to bring more evidence in IG, using what concrete tools and techniques? How should an IG observatory, which would gather and prepare such evidence, function? The event will provide an overview of what is the evidence-based approach to Internet governance and highlight lessons from the fields of cybersecurity, e-commerce, and development. Speakers include: - *Dr Jovan Kurbalija*, Director of DiploFoundation, head of the Geneva Internet Platform - *Ms Lichia Yiu*, Director of the Centre for Socio-Economic Development, Geneva - *Mr Michael Kende*, Chief Economist of the Internet Society - *Dr Eduardo Gelbstein*, Former Director of the UN Computing Center (tbc) *Join us for the online webinar on Tuesday, 28th October, at 12:00 (13:00 CET). To register, please fill in the registration form . For those who would like to join in situ, the event is taking place in Bern, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Bundesgasse 28, Room 9.* The theme is the third of the preparatory events for the Geneva Internet Conference , a process which is tackling relevant themes with the input of communities around the globe. The previous two preparatory events discussed how to overcome policy silos , and avenues for addressing IG issues. The outcomes of the thematic discussions will feed into the Geneva Internet Conference. E-see you on Tuesday! Diplo's IG webinars team PS. For a monthly round-up of the main IG-related events and developments, join us for our next Geneva Briefing on 4 November . Like us on FaceBook Follow us on Twitter Our website Our network *Copyright © 2014 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* ------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon Oct 27 14:02:50 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:02:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference In-Reply-To: <544E835E.8090400@apc.org> References: <544E835E.8090400@apc.org> Message-ID: <544E88CA.8050904@apc.org> Dear all Attached are APC's remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference. Please do send us your feedback. Anriette -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_ITU_Plenipot14.pdf Type: application/force-download Size: 84572 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 Mon Oct 27 14:23:06 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:23:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] APC remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference In-Reply-To: References: <544E835E.8090400@apc.org> <544E88CA.8050904@apc.org> Message-ID: <544E8D8A.7090905@apc.org> Thanks Anne. It was not easy. But it did help to have the other statements from CS to look at and reflect on. We tried hard to find a tone that will encourage delegates to take the comments seriously, particularly by developing countries, but we should have finished this much earlier. What both Deborah and I agree on, and possibly others would also agree with us, is that civil society does not have clearly though tout demands when it comes to cyber security. My proposal would be that this becomes a topic for Best Bits and Web We Want to think about and work on in the near future. We need something substantial such as 'necessary and proportionate'. We need to know what we want, not just what we don't want. Anriette On 27/10/2014 20:13, Anne Jellema wrote: > Great work Anriette and Deborah. Cogent, well argued and well written. > Kudos. > best > Anne > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > > > Dear all > > Attached are APC's remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary > conference. > > Please do send us your feedback. > > Anriette > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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) > @afjellema > * > * > *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 -- ````````````````````````````````` 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Oct 27 23:42:33 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:42:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> Guru, On Oct 27, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Guru Acharya wrote: > Please take the reply in context of the fact that I do not support Proposal 98 - it is unarguably flawed; I am only trying to highlight the concerns that India may have taken into account. Understood. > I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in contrast to equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also "first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need". > ... > IPv6 is a distant dream that will overcome the artificial scarcity and will understandably resolve the current situation. Im talking about IPv4. The scarcity of IPv4 address is _not_ artificial. It is simply a fact. As such the verb tense you used was wrong: the allocation _was_ "first-come-first-serve". If I understand correctly, the implication of Proposal 98 is that the government of India wants to (a) strip IPv4 addresses from current registrants and/or (b) "redistribute" the remaining pool of IPv4 addresses, mostly held by AfriNIC (other RIRs have some address space left, but AfriNIC has, by far, the largest remaining pool) in a more "fair" (to whom?) fashion. If viewed in the worst possible light, one could argue (a) is theft and (b) is reminiscent of past colonialist behavior with respect to resources on the continent of Africa. Neither of these seem either tenable or appropriate. As such, I have to wonder what exactly the point of Proposal 98 actually is. > [Guru]: I agree that representatives on the APNIC EC do not represent their nations but an Indian will unarguably have a better understanding of the requirements/problems of domestic private players from India. Further, who will represent the people who are yet to connect to the internet (many such from India) if representation is limited to current resource holders? There is a misunderstanding the role of APNIC's EC here. They do not make policy or represent anyone other than themselves. They ensure policy developed via the bottom-up community processes has followed the APNIC policy development process. > [Guru]: Agreed. I agree that "redistribution" sounds rather drastic. Please take it to mean any instrument that you deem fit for fixing the present institutional arrangement. I'm not sure changing the terminology has much of an impact. Given the exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool, the 'instrument' is either some global version of "eminent domain" or markets, neither of which will address the fundamental underlying problem: 32 bits simply can not meet the global demand. Even in a world where one can renumber the entire Internet, you still have the problem that there are far more devices than can be address by 32 bits _now_, much less in the future. 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 gurcharya at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 02:25:23 2014 From: gurcharya at gmail.com (Guru Acharya) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:55:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> Message-ID: In-line response. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Guru, > > On Oct 27, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Guru Acharya wrote: > > Please take the reply in context of the fact that I do not support > Proposal 98 - it is unarguably flawed; I am only trying to highlight the > concerns that India may have taken into account. > > Understood. > > > I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in contrast to > equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also > "first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need". > > ... > > > IPv6 is a distant dream that will overcome the artificial scarcity and > will understandably resolve the current situation. Im talking about IPv4. > > The scarcity of IPv4 address is _not_ artificial. It is simply a fact. As > such the verb tense you used was wrong: the allocation _was_ > "first-come-first-serve". > > If I understand correctly, the implication of Proposal 98 is that the > government of India wants to (a) strip IPv4 addresses from current > registrants and/or (b) "redistribute" the remaining pool of IPv4 addresses, > mostly held by AfriNIC (other RIRs have some address space left, but > AfriNIC has, by far, the largest remaining pool) in a more "fair" (to > whom?) fashion. > > If viewed in the worst possible light, one could argue (a) is theft and > (b) is reminiscent of past colonialist behavior with respect to resources > on the continent of Africa. > > [Guru]: I like how you brought colonialism of Africa into this. I don't think India wants to plunder Africa as you suggest. You're limiting your thinking to the resources that are left in the IPv4 resource pool, while India may possibly be thinking of redistribution of resources that have already been allocated. In that sense, in your paradigm of colonialism, let me argue that India wants inhuman colonialists and plunderers like the Europeans and Americans to return the plundered resources back to the innocent folks of Africa and Asia. Now did you really want to bring in the colonialism paradigm into the simple explanation of India's concerns? > Neither of these seem either tenable or appropriate. As such, I have to > wonder what exactly the point of Proposal 98 actually is. > > > [Guru]: I agree that representatives on the APNIC EC do not represent > their nations but an Indian will unarguably have a better understanding of > the requirements/problems of domestic private players from India. Further, > who will represent the people who are yet to connect to the internet (many > such from India) if representation is limited to current resource holders? > > There is a misunderstanding the role of APNIC's EC here. They do not make > policy or represent anyone other than themselves. They ensure policy > developed via the bottom-up community processes has followed the APNIC > policy development process. > > [Guru]: Thats an incorrect representation of the work done by the APNIC EC. Please read the list of functions performed by the APNIC EC here: http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/structure/apnic-executive-council/EC-roles-and-obligations Further, there are many issues like the IANA transition that fall outside the scope of the Policy SIG. For example, the APNIC EC was seen to have pushed its proposal (prepared by the EC and secretariat) for the IANA transition during APNIC38 in a top-down fashion. Are you really suggesting the APNIC EC has no role to play here as well? > > [Guru]: Agreed. I agree that "redistribution" sounds rather drastic. > Please take it to mean any instrument that you deem fit for fixing the > present institutional arrangement. > > I'm not sure changing the terminology has much of an impact. Given the > exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool, the 'instrument' is either some global > version of "eminent domain" or markets, neither of which will address the > fundamental underlying problem: 32 bits simply can not meet the global > demand. Even in a world where one can renumber the entire Internet, you > still have the problem that there are far more devices than can be address > by 32 bits _now_, much less in the future. > > [Guru]: Ok. Then lets stick to "redistribution" as the appropriate "instrument". > Regards, > -drc > (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself. Really.) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurcharya at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 02:25:56 2014 From: gurcharya at gmail.com (Guru Acharya) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:55:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: > > > [Guru]: I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in > contrast > > to equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also > > "first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need". Put together, the > resource > > is allocated to whoever establishes "need on a first-come-first-serve" > > basis. As a result, India's late adoption of the Internet exposes it to > an > > almost empty resource pool of IPv4 addresses. > > It wasn't almost empty when India first got online. Everyone is in > the same boat in > terms of constrained resources. There is no "inequity" when everyone > suffers equally. See below: > > Let me get this right. You are saying that India is not a late entrant because when the first person from India got an internet connection there were a lot of IP addresses available. Therefore, in your head, late entrant has nothing to do with the fact that less than 20% of India has access to Internet and that India is adding almost a million internet connections a month. And you say our situation is "equitable" to Japan with 95% broadband penetration and a major chuck of the IPv4 pool? Right. Ok. Agreed. There is no inequity. You win. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 28 02:33:23 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:03:23 +0530 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> Message-ID: <149557563c8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Redistribution, mostly to cronies, is how mugabe managed things - with the result that Zimbabwe is now a basket case. So yes the colonial analogy is sadly relevant. On 28 October 2014 11:55:47 am Guru Acharya wrote: > In-line response. > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > > Guru, > > > > On Oct 27, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Guru Acharya wrote: > > > Please take the reply in context of the fact that I do not support > > Proposal 98 - it is unarguably flawed; I am only trying to highlight the > > concerns that India may have taken into account. > > > > Understood. > > > > > I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in contrast to > > equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also > > "first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need". > > > ... > > > > > IPv6 is a distant dream that will overcome the artificial scarcity and > > will understandably resolve the current situation. Im talking about IPv4. > > > > The scarcity of IPv4 address is _not_ artificial. It is simply a fact. As > > such the verb tense you used was wrong: the allocation _was_ > > "first-come-first-serve". > > > > If I understand correctly, the implication of Proposal 98 is that the > > government of India wants to (a) strip IPv4 addresses from current > > registrants and/or (b) "redistribute" the remaining pool of IPv4 addresses, > > mostly held by AfriNIC (other RIRs have some address space left, but > > AfriNIC has, by far, the largest remaining pool) in a more "fair" (to > > whom?) fashion. > > > > If viewed in the worst possible light, one could argue (a) is theft and > > (b) is reminiscent of past colonialist behavior with respect to resources > > on the continent of Africa. > > > > > [Guru]: I like how you brought colonialism of Africa into this. I don't > think India wants to plunder Africa as you suggest. You're limiting your > thinking to the resources that are left in the IPv4 resource pool, while > India may possibly be thinking of redistribution of resources that have > already been allocated. In that sense, in your paradigm of colonialism, let > me argue that India wants inhuman colonialists and plunderers like the > Europeans and Americans to return the plundered resources back to the > innocent folks of Africa and Asia. > > Now did you really want to bring in the colonialism paradigm into the > simple explanation of India's concerns? > > > > > Neither of these seem either tenable or appropriate. As such, I have to > > wonder what exactly the point of Proposal 98 actually is. > > > > > [Guru]: I agree that representatives on the APNIC EC do not represent > > their nations but an Indian will unarguably have a better understanding of > > the requirements/problems of domestic private players from India. Further, > > who will represent the people who are yet to connect to the internet (many > > such from India) if representation is limited to current resource holders? > > > > There is a misunderstanding the role of APNIC's EC here. They do not make > > policy or represent anyone other than themselves. They ensure policy > > developed via the bottom-up community processes has followed the APNIC > > policy development process. > > > > > [Guru]: Thats an incorrect representation of the work done by the APNIC EC. > Please read the list of functions performed by the APNIC EC here: > http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/structure/apnic-executive-council/EC-roles-and-obligations > > Further, there are many issues like the IANA transition that fall outside > the scope of the Policy SIG. For example, the APNIC EC was seen to have > pushed its proposal (prepared by the EC and secretariat) for the IANA > transition during APNIC38 in a top-down fashion. Are you really suggesting > the APNIC EC has no role to play here as well? > > > > > > [Guru]: Agreed. I agree that "redistribution" sounds rather drastic. > > Please take it to mean any instrument that you deem fit for fixing the > > present institutional arrangement. > > > > I'm not sure changing the terminology has much of an impact. Given the > > exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool, the 'instrument' is either some global > > version of "eminent domain" or markets, neither of which will address the > > fundamental underlying problem: 32 bits simply can not meet the global > > demand. Even in a world where one can renumber the entire Internet, you > > still have the problem that there are far more devices than can be address > > by 32 bits _now_, much less in the future. > > > > > [Guru]: Ok. Then lets stick to "redistribution" as the appropriate > "instrument". > > > > > Regards, > > -drc > > (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself. Really.) > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 28 05:12:00 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:12:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I will be happy to declare a victory if I can convince you that thinking of IP resource distribution in Westphalian terms isn't useful. -- Cheers, McTim On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Guru Acharya wrote: >> > [Guru]: I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in >> > contrast >> > to equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also >> > "first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need". Put together, the >> > resource >> > is allocated to whoever establishes "need on a first-come-first-serve" >> > basis. As a result, India's late adoption of the Internet exposes it to >> > an >> > almost empty resource pool of IPv4 addresses. >> >> It wasn't almost empty when India first got online. Everyone is in >> the same boat in >> terms of constrained resources. There is no "inequity" when everyone >> suffers equally. See below: >> > > Let me get this right. You are saying that India is not a late entrant > because when the first person from India got an internet connection there > were a lot of IP addresses available. Therefore, in your head, late entrant > has nothing to do with the fact that less than 20% of India has access to > Internet and that India is adding almost a million internet connections a > month. And you say our situation is "equitable" to Japan with 95% broadband > penetration and a major chuck of the IPv4 pool? Right. Ok. Agreed. There is > no inequity. You win. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Oct 28 05:36:17 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:36:17 +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> Message-ID: <544F6391.8000005@digsys.bg> On 27.10.14 06:22, Guru Acharya wrote: > I agree that India's strategy in Proposal 98 is not well thought out. Not only that. It's political in nature and is impossible to implement in the current reality. At least not in the way it is presented and not with the goals/expectations that are behind it. > However, I think India's concerns stem from the following: > > 1) IP addresses are not equitably distributed in the Asia Pacific > region. The skewed allocation is reflected in the statistics that > Eastern Asia holds 2,712,098 of the IPv4/24 addresses while South Asia > (including India) holds only 170,365 of the IPv4/24 addresses. This is so everywhere. People call this legacy. It is just as it is and best of all -- it works. As already mentioned, those unhappy with the IPv4 address space distribution can do just what is best for everyone (themselves included): move along and adopt IPv6. As IPv6 is more widely adopted, the significance of the IPv4 (if any) distribution will fade and will be only of interest to historians. > > 2) [...] > Additionally, while this system of proportional voting creates a bias in > favour of incumbent members who have grandfathered large IP holdings, > the system penalises those members who are using IP addresses > efficiently (for example by using Network Address Translation) and also > penalises the community that is yet to connect to the Internet or has > connected to the Internet late. There is another line of thinking here as well: the so called incumbents with larger address space allocations are likely to serve much wider audience (different users have different needs of IP addresses, NAT is *not* the solution for everyone). By having more weight in how this all is handled, obviously the "incumbents" have a system that favors stability. > > 3) There are two options for redistribution of IP addresses. The first > is to go through the APNIC PDP, which is to reform APNIC from within. > The second is to bypass APNIC and ask ITU to take over the RIR function. > India seems to have adopted the second path due to lack of trust in the > first path, It is interesting to observe the hypocrisy here: The ITU is the typical "incumbent" organization, with the sole focus on preserving it's members investments (in an largely obsolete by now infrastructure). What they are effectively trying to accomplish now is grab someone's turf via their cooperating governments. Nothing new under the Sun, but why should we, the public, support this? > While I feel that India's concerns are genuine, I also feel the path > adopted is incorrect. If this proposal goes through as is, it can > fragment the Internet through three routes: First, through alternate > (non-IETF) standards emerging (from ITU) to address security concerns > that are not inter-operable with existing standards; Second, through a > broken non-unique allocation of IP addresses where ITU and RIRs allocate > IP addresses in parallel; Third, through an alternate root zone emerging > to address the names part of Proposal 98. There is not much threat in fragmenting the Internet. Everyone gets on the Internet, because they so desire. Out of their own needs. Nobody is mandating the use of Internet. All kinds of individuals, businesses, the monopoly telcos themselves (who are the ITU's reason for existence), governments -- everyone gets on the Internet and is more than happy that it exists and (however unbelievably it sounds to some of them) it all works. Like a miracle. A much larger and more powerful nation state, China, has already experimented with fragmenting the Internet. Not to mention the US (now and in the past). They all find out that the price is way too high. The normal people know ITU best for their standards making efforts. There is nothing wrong with the ITU trying to develop globally interoperable (and neutral) standards to complement the Internet protocols. If those standards are useful, they will get wider acceptance in the Internet. If not... will follow the fate of many other ITU experiments. It is often not important what you do, but why. By the way, if India ISPs wanted to have more IPv4 address space, they should have worked to that effect earlier. IPv4 is essentially a done deal now. There is no force to cause the Internet to renumber -- if Internet participants are forced to do so, they will rather move to IPv6. 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 Tue Oct 28 05:41:18 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:41:18 +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> Message-ID: <544F64BE.1000306@digsys.bg> On 27.10.14 09:48, Guru Acharya wrote: > > > [Guru]: Either way, I'm guessing the Indian government perceived the ITU > route to be easier to participate in than the PDP route. Maybe, this > implies that the PDP needs to be more receptive to nation-states as > stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). Maybe > the PDP can be improved/fine-tuned to address the concerns of > nation-states as stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other > stakeholders). > IP addresses are only of use to ISPs. What would a nation-state do with IP addresses? In what sense are they stakeholders for IP address space? These are just numbers, after all. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 06:14:45 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:14:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] India's Draft Resolution at the ITU: A human rights analysis In-Reply-To: <544F54C8.9010305@cis-india.org> References: <544F54C8.9010305@cis-india.org> Message-ID: I'm sure mosthave seen this on BB, but for those not subscribed: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Geetha Hariharan Date: Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:33 AM Subject: [bestbits] India's Draft Resolution at the ITU: A human rights analysis To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 An analysis of some human rights implications of India's new draft resolutions at the ITU: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-going-awry-i-why-india2019s-proposal-at-the-itu-is-troubling-for-internet-freedoms Comments and suggestions welcome! Best, Geetha. - -- Geetha Hariharan Programme Officer Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 8860 360717 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUT1TIAAoJENMCY59StgV58UoH/RmMj3LYH7OsOpQxYWuAun/j a4raqE1Dmg8KXu2lkK5leToMAz5fJXryic1bZRxcZDG1R07eRx62JbMwVdQDII9s SomnF22yOVcIZ1os4Nol6KV/vS4Z2WvoR3+XD54x9c0h01OvhNeq36Tzl3abDloO 6oL4Jd41Go0/JWg4UoiXY3qwJ7QWBICwgZ4zr+/0/fzl1Ugdt2CqWflljTmCvV8p DHr3p5p2Q8dq7KEszHH9d0bXYEvEfkqzr3wcVrnVrHyPGZ78eZVgWHPJSfrpgjza 9dto7uVItqcu0Zx4EElhr+KM58Q3LqqujKnoeCGeA63TisihgCiQOFHYljvVyNk= =Oqrc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- 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 daniel at digsys.bg Tue Oct 28 06:18:16 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:18:16 +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> Message-ID: <544F6D68.3050507@digsys.bg> On 28.10.14 08:25, Guru Acharya wrote: > In-line response. > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM, David Conrad > wrote: > > Guru, > > On Oct 27, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Guru Acharya > wrote: > > Please take the reply in context of the fact that I do not support Proposal 98 - it is unarguably flawed; I am only trying to highlight the concerns that India may have taken into account. > > Understood. > > > I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in contrast to equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also "first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need". > > ... > > > IPv6 is a distant dream that will overcome the artificial scarcity and will understandably resolve the current situation. Im talking about IPv4. > > The scarcity of IPv4 address is _not_ artificial. It is simply a > fact. As such the verb tense you used was wrong: the allocation > _was_ "first-come-first-serve". > > If I understand correctly, the implication of Proposal 98 is that > the government of India wants to (a) strip IPv4 addresses from > current registrants and/or (b) "redistribute" the remaining pool of > IPv4 addresses, mostly held by AfriNIC (other RIRs have some address > space left, but AfriNIC has, by far, the largest remaining pool) in > a more "fair" (to whom?) fashion. > > If viewed in the worst possible light, one could argue (a) is theft > and (b) is reminiscent of past colonialist behavior with respect to > resources on the continent of Africa. > > > [Guru]: I like how you brought colonialism of Africa into this. I don't > think India wants to plunder Africa as you suggest. You're limiting your > thinking to the resources that are left in the IPv4 resource pool, while > India may possibly be thinking of redistribution of resources that have > already been allocated. In that sense, in your paradigm of colonialism, > let me argue that India wants inhuman colonialists and plunderers like > the Europeans and Americans to return the plundered resources back to > the innocent folks of Africa and Asia. > > Now did you really want to bring in the colonialism paradigm into the > simple explanation of India's concerns? As already mentioned, wanting someone else's resources without their proper consent is theft. How else would India go to convince those parties that are already allocated IP address space to give it to them? There already *IS* secondary market for IP address space and the early "investors" got it cheap, but just like any other market, with more demand, the prices are guaranteed to go up. Will India pay with public money for this resource? Who will get it at the end? Why would the public funds be approved to be spent for someone's business? (ok, I know, this is happening everywhere) As for colonialism, you don't want to go that route too. How far back are you willing to go? It is very questionable who grabbed 'whose land' resources at one moment. It is safer to stick with IP addressing, I believe. Unfortunately, convincing you this kind of resource is a bit different is not enough, as that would not convince the Indian government, nor would it convince the ITU. Sometimes one really has to grow up and experience all the real-life lessons first hand, to understand. Regards, 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 28 06:34:51 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:34:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?JNC_statement_=22Governing_the_global_Inte?= =?UTF-8?Q?rnet_=E2=80=93_is_the_status_quo_the_only_option=3F=22?= Message-ID: <20141028113451.02a33891@quill> Dear all The new JNC statement "Governing the global Internet – is the status quo the only option?" is available at http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014_Stmt2.pdf Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 28 06:37:40 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:07:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] India's Draft Resolution at the ITU: A human rights analysis In-Reply-To: References: <544F54C8.9010305@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <14956551180.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> CIS has historically done the best (possibly the only good) policy work in india so thanks for pointing me to it. On 28 October 2014 3:46:31 pm McTim wrote: > I'm sure mosthave seen this on BB, but for those not subscribed: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Geetha Hariharan > Date: Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:33 AM > Subject: [bestbits] India's Draft Resolution at the ITU: A human rights > analysis > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > An analysis of some human rights implications of India's new draft > resolutions at the ITU: > > http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-going-awry-i-why-india2019s-proposal-at-the-itu-is-troubling-for-internet-freedoms > > Comments and suggestions welcome! > > Best, > Geetha. > > - -- > Geetha Hariharan > Programme Officer > Centre for Internet and Society > W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 8860 360717 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUT1TIAAoJENMCY59StgV58UoH/RmMj3LYH7OsOpQxYWuAun/j > a4raqE1Dmg8KXu2lkK5leToMAz5fJXryic1bZRxcZDG1R07eRx62JbMwVdQDII9s > SomnF22yOVcIZ1os4Nol6KV/vS4Z2WvoR3+XD54x9c0h01OvhNeq36Tzl3abDloO > 6oL4Jd41Go0/JWg4UoiXY3qwJ7QWBICwgZ4zr+/0/fzl1Ugdt2CqWflljTmCvV8p > DHr3p5p2Q8dq7KEszHH9d0bXYEvEfkqzr3wcVrnVrHyPGZ78eZVgWHPJSfrpgjza > 9dto7uVItqcu0Zx4EElhr+KM58Q3LqqujKnoeCGeA63TisihgCiQOFHYljvVyNk= > =Oqrc > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 07:14:25 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:44:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <544F64BE.1000306@digsys.bg> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <544F64BE.1000306@digsys.bg> Message-ID: > > IP addresses are only of use to ISPs. ​Regardless of the context of this comment, it is especially true of India. ​The end user does not yet get to have an IP address. ISPs and very large Business Users get to have IP addresses, who largely assign dynamic IP addresses. If the ISPs maintain a session-wise NAT table that traces the end user by the dynamic address assigned to the user for the session, such a system is prone to be unreliable. The world feels the scarcity of IPv4 addresses during the last 7 years, whereas in India the ISPs have made the IP addresses very dear from the beginning. Possibly for this reason, it suited the Network Operators not to try to obtain huge blocks as Operators from other countries did. Now even if the Government throws its weight behind this 'cause' and obtains by some means IPv4 blocks, how would it be a benefit to the end user in India? Sivasubramanian M On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 27.10.14 09:48, Guru Acharya wrote: > > > > > > [Guru]: Either way, I'm guessing the Indian government perceived the ITU > > route to be easier to participate in than the PDP route. Maybe, this > > implies that the PDP needs to be more receptive to nation-states as > > stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). Maybe > > the PDP can be improved/fine-tuned to address the concerns of > > nation-states as stakeholders (yes yes, on an equal footing as other > > stakeholders). > > > > IP addresses are only of use to ISPs. What would a nation-state do with > IP addresses? In what sense are they stakeholders for IP address space? > > These are just numbers, after all. > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Oct 28 07:49:18 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:49:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 10:12 28/10/2014, McTim wrote: >I will be happy to declare a victory if I can convince you that thinking of >IP resource distribution in Westphalian terms isn't useful. dear Guru and McTim, I would be happy to declare peace the day [inapropriate] dogmatisms are removed from where they do not belong. Please stop thinking in "XIXth reviewing XVIIth" paradigms. The (uncompleted) XXIth paradigm has been explicited by IEEE, IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C in RFC 6852 and the way to administratively address it by IETF, ITU, ICANN and W3C in RFC 2691. What is archaic is the IPv6 and IDNS management entrusted to governance structures designed by the NTIA to manage IPv4 and the US-DNS and the adoration of the gods of administrative and technical status-quoes. Did any of you heard about LISP, NDN, SDN, ISO layer six, IEN 48 objective, etc? jfc >-- >Cheers, > >McTim > > >On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Guru Acharya wrote: > >> > [Guru]: I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in > >> > contrast > >> > to equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also > >> > "first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need". Put together, the > >> > resource > >> > is allocated to whoever establishes "need on a first-come-first-serve" > >> > basis. As a result, India's late adoption of the Internet exposes it to > >> > an > >> > almost empty resource pool of IPv4 addresses. > >> > >> It wasn't almost empty when India first got online. Everyone is in > >> the same boat in > >> terms of constrained resources. There is no "inequity" when everyone > >> suffers equally. See below: > >> > > > > Let me get this right. You are saying that India is not a late entrant > > because when the first person from India got an internet connection there > > were a lot of IP addresses available. Therefore, in your head, late entrant > > has nothing to do with the fact that less than 20% of India has access to > > Internet and that India is adding almost a million internet connections a > > month. And you say our situation is "equitable" to Japan with 95% broadband > > penetration and a major chuck of the IPv4 pool? Right. Ok. Agreed. There is > > no inequity. You win. > > > > > >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 daniel at digsys.bg Tue Oct 28 08:33:58 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:33:58 +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> Message-ID: <544F8D36.3000705@digsys.bg> On 28.10.14 13:49, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 10:12 28/10/2014, McTim wrote: > >> I will be happy to declare a victory if I can convince you that >> thinking of >> IP resource distribution in Westphalian terms isn't useful. > > dear Guru and McTim, > > I would be happy to declare peace the day [inapropriate] dogmatisms are > removed from where they do not belong. Please stop thinking in "XIXth > reviewing XVIIth" paradigms. The (uncompleted) XXIth paradigm has been > explicited by IEEE, IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C in RFC 6852 and the way to > administratively address it by IETF, ITU, ICANN and W3C in RFC 2691. > > What is archaic is the IPv6 and IDNS management entrusted to governance > structures designed by the NTIA to manage IPv4 and the US-DNS and the > adoration of the gods of administrative and technical status-quoes. > > Did any of you heard about LISP, NDN, SDN, ISO layer six, IEN 48 > objective, etc? Excuse my intrusion in this higher-than-my-desire-to-argue level of discussion, but... Remember X.400? An arguably better designed, better specified and documented protocol than SMTP, yet it failed miserably. Why? Because the intents were malicious. Humans seek freedom. And even when they appear to bend under governance "for the greater good", they still continue to seek freedom. It is indeed appropriate to remove the dogmatism in this discussion and replace it with common sense. The common sense says this initiative will fail. It also says this will be yet another good example, which will be ignored, as usual. For it is in human nature to try to demonstrate you are better (choice) than the other guy/gal (nothing to do with technology). Yep, I know.. ;) Daniel PS: In any case, do not mind being enlightened about the subtle political differences between IPv6 and IPv4 address space management. To my engineer mind, both are numbers. Might be the size difference creates a new dimension? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 10:28:17 2014 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:28:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Multistakeholderism/ Was Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sala Hello, hello to all, This explanation of the "multi" concept is peeled as the debates live. But I wonder whether we are in search of a definition of "multi-stakeholder"? In my humble opinion, this approach started from the PrepCom in 2003 it makes sense to evaluate this approach since that time until now to identify the ins and outs to improve. Thank you so much for this reminder that lies in the debate. *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2014-10-25 12:24 GMT+02:00 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>: > Dear All, > > Sometime ago (many months ago) on the IGC there was some discussion on the > list about MSism. Here is a draft synthesis of what people were saying at > the time that really should go on the IGC etherpad for comment and further > discussion. I tried synthesising it but it needs a group of volunteers to > comb through IGC archives and help piece together the different views etc. > > It is pointless to go on a debate that leads to nowehere except of course > where people can accept that there are diverse views and position but > resolve to agree to disagree etc. > > > Synthesis of Discussions on the IGC on Multistakeholderism > > These are interesting times in the context of enhanced cooperation between > various stakeholders within the Information Society. The following is a > synthesis of perspectives gleaned from the dialogue on the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) list. > > What does “Multistakeholder” mean? > > Multistakeholder is a governance structure that brings diverse > stakeholders together to cooperate and participate in the dialogue, > decision making, and implementation of solutions to common problems or > goals[1]. > > What is Multistakeholderism? > > Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement; it is not a > means of legitimization[2]. Legitimization comes from people, from work > with and among people[3]. Multistakeholder processes could and should > enhance democracy by increasing opportunities for effective participation > by those most directly impacted by decisions and particularly those at the > grassroots who so often are voiceless in these processes[4]. It should > enhance democracy by ensuring that decisions made are reflective of and > responsive to local concerns and to the broadest range of those who must > bear the consequences[5]. It should enhance democracy by making democratic > processes more flexible and responsive, able to adjust to changing contexts > circumstances, technologies, and impact populations[6]. > > In the context of Internet Governance, there exists a diverse set of > stakeholders that each have their respective framework which describes how > subscribers are to engage. There is no doubt a wide range of foras, > organisations, committees or groups where some form of “Multistakeholder” > governance is practiced whether various modes of vehicles including but not > limited to that of a Trust, Corporation, Organisation, Intergovernmental > Forum, an International Organisation or an ad hoc community. > > Multistakeholderism on an Organizational Level > > This can be seen within an organizational level, for example, > organisations such as Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN)[7] has its Bylaws[8] which sets out its mission and core values and > describes the various constituencies within ICANN. > > Each constituency within ICANN has specific framework governing how each > stakeholder conducts its affairs. > > There are many other organisations within the Information Society that > have some form of Multistakeholder engagement and these organisations have > guidelines that help to act as a framework for relations. > > Multistakeholderism in Working Groups and Committees > > This can also be seen with regard to Working Groups, take for example the > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. > > The United Nations General Assembly, at its 67th session, adopted Resolution > 67/195 on Information and communication technologies for development[9]. This > Resolution invited the Chair of the United Nations Commission on Science > and Technology for Development (UN CSTD)[10], to establish a working group > on enhanced cooperation to examine the mandate of the World Summit on the > Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained in the > Tunis Agenda. > > The Tunis Agenda[11] pivots on focusing on financial mechanisms for > bridging the digital divide, on Internet governance and related issues, as > well as on implementation and follow-up of the Geneva and Tunis decisions. > > The GA RES 67/195 requested the Chair of the UN CSTD to “ensure that the > working group on enhanced cooperation has balanced representation between > Governments from the five regional groups of the Commission and invites > other stakeholders, namely the private sector, civil society, technical and > academic communities, and intergovernmental and international > organisations”. > > Challenges of Multistakeholderism: Issues within Civil Society > > In 2004, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) participated in a > Civil Society Meeting in Berlin and identified principles and examined > issues affecting Civil Society[12]. The meeting comprised of a > representative from the ICANN At Large Advisory Committee[13], Humanistiche > Union[14], Internet Governance Caucus Coordinator[15], the UN Non- > Governmental Liaison Service[16], and African Civil Society for the > Information Society[17] and Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship > with the United Nations[18]. > > > > Principles that were identified in the 2004 meeting included: > > · Legitimacy; > > · Representation; > > · Transparency; and > > · Accountability. > > Issues of legitimacy, representation, transparency and accountability > continue to surface over the years on a global, regional and national scale > (Anja Kovacs & Nnenna Nwakanma). > > Navigating Through the Maze > > Just as context differs, whether it is for an organisation or a committee, > it is important to acknowledge that context differs whether these are > organisations or intergovernmental organisations that are subject to > diverse rules and procedures. The United Nations for instance is bound by > the Resolutions of its members as per the General Assembly and can only act > when mandated. > > ICANN on the other hand is bound by its Bylaws and its Affirmation of > Commitment. > > Similarly, the Working Groups are bound by their respective mandates > whether these are in the form of formal documentation such as organizing > instruments or where these are loosely organized in an ad hoc fashion. > > Whatever, the context, one thing is certain, bringing a diverse group of > people poses significant challenges to building consensus and bridging > relationships particularly when there are diverse if not polarized > perspectives and strong views from various stakeholders. > > Purpose Precedes Method > > To this end, a practical means of dealing with diversity is to clearly > establish the purpose from the outset (David Allen). After this is > established, it is useful to develop the methods where the purpose(s) can > be fulfilled (David Allen and Parminder). > > Given that the nature of Multistakeholder engagement implies the inclusion > of civil society, private sector and the public sector, it follows that > each categorization has unique concerns and characteristics that relate to > its identity. > > Often the disenfranchisement, turf wars or propaganda is motivated by > fears and it is important that these fears are addressed. Part of > establishing purpose means to create a safe environment where genuine > collaboration can commence. > > Multistakeholderism is not a replacement (David Allen) and does not take > away from each component or part. Rather it is the sum of all parts. > > Multistakeholderism is not a policy making forum as this is reserved for > democratic contexts (David Allen). > > Multistakeholderism is a means of moving towards greater engagement and > enhanced cooperation among diverse stakeholders (Michael Gurstein). > > > ------------------------------ > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_Governance_Model > > [2] Statement by Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT for Change at > the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review held by UNESCO from 25th to > 27th February, 2013 > > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_Governance_Model > > [4] ibid > > [5] ibid > > [6] ibid > > [7] A Californian Non Profit Public-Benefit Corporation > > [8] http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws > > [9] http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ares67d195_en.pdf > > [10] Ambassador Miguel Palomino de la Gala is the current Chair of the UN > CSTD > > [11] http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html > > [12] Meeting Record on Working Methods of Civil Society (20th November > 2004), Berlin, Germany > > [13] Vittorio Bertola > > [14] Dr Christoph Bruch > > [15] Jeanette Hoffman > > [16] Ramin Kaweh > > [17] Nnenna Nwakanma > > [18] Rik Panganiban > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:30 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> It is interesting to see that those who are amongst the most vocal and >> public advocates for MSism are also those who refuse to actually indicate >> what they mean by MSism. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Oct 28 11:36:07 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:36:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?JNC_statement_=22Governing_the_global_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Internet_=E2=80=93_is_the_status_quo_the_only_option=3F=22?= In-Reply-To: <20141028113451.02a33891@quill> References: <20141028113451.02a33891@quill> Message-ID: I stopped reading once the straw man came out: "…decision making by self-selected elites, otherwise known by the name “multistakeholder governance”. Centrally, this position advocates an 'equal footing' multistakeholder model for global governance of the Internet, whereby global corporations are given the same level of power as governments in deciding public policy issues." -- 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 Oct 28, 2014, at 3:34 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Dear all > > The new JNC statement "Governing the global Internet – is the status > quo the only option?" is available at > > http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014_Stmt2.pdf > > Greetings, > Norbert > co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 11:45:26 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 04:45:26 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Multistakeholderism/ Was Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Baoudouin. I will include this in the synthesis. Just a matter of scanvenging for time to consolidate threads and input :) Many thanks again, Sala On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > Sala Hello, hello to all, > > This explanation of the "multi" concept is peeled as the debates live. But > I wonder whether we are in search of a definition of "multi-stakeholder"? > In my humble opinion, this approach started from the PrepCom in 2003 > it makes sense to evaluate > this approach since that time until now to identify the ins and outs to > improve. > > Thank you so much for this reminder that lies in the debate. > > *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* > > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECICANN/AFRALO Member* > *ISOC Member* > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > > > 2014-10-25 12:24 GMT+02:00 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>: > >> Dear All, >> >> Sometime ago (many months ago) on the IGC there was some discussion on >> the list about MSism. Here is a draft synthesis of what people were saying >> at the time that really should go on the IGC etherpad for comment and >> further discussion. I tried synthesising it but it needs a group of >> volunteers to comb through IGC archives and help piece together the >> different views etc. >> >> It is pointless to go on a debate that leads to nowehere except of course >> where people can accept that there are diverse views and position but >> resolve to agree to disagree etc. >> >> >> Synthesis of Discussions on the IGC on Multistakeholderism >> >> These are interesting times in the context of enhanced cooperation >> between various stakeholders within the Information Society. The following >> is a synthesis of perspectives gleaned from the dialogue on the Civil >> Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) list. >> >> What does "Multistakeholder" mean? >> >> Multistakeholder is a governance structure that brings diverse >> stakeholders together to cooperate and participate in the dialogue, >> decision making, and implementation of solutions to common problems or >> goals[1]. >> >> What is Multistakeholderism? >> >> Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement; it is not a >> means of legitimization[2]. Legitimization comes from people, from work >> with and among people[3]. Multistakeholder processes could and should >> enhance democracy by increasing opportunities for effective participation >> by those most directly impacted by decisions and particularly those at the >> grassroots who so often are voiceless in these processes[4]. It should >> enhance democracy by ensuring that decisions made are reflective of and >> responsive to local concerns and to the broadest range of those who must >> bear the consequences[5]. It should enhance democracy by making democratic >> processes more flexible and responsive, able to adjust to changing contexts >> circumstances, technologies, and impact populations[6]. >> >> In the context of Internet Governance, there exists a diverse set of >> stakeholders that each have their respective framework which describes how >> subscribers are to engage. There is no doubt a wide range of foras, >> organisations, committees or groups where some form of "Multistakeholder" >> governance is practiced whether various modes of vehicles including but not >> limited to that of a Trust, Corporation, Organisation, Intergovernmental >> Forum, an International Organisation or an ad hoc community. >> >> Multistakeholderism on an Organizational Level >> >> This can be seen within an organizational level, for example, >> organisations such as Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN)[7] has its Bylaws[8] which sets out its mission and core values and >> describes the various constituencies within ICANN. >> >> Each constituency within ICANN has specific framework governing how each >> stakeholder conducts its affairs. >> >> There are many other organisations within the Information Society that >> have some form of Multistakeholder engagement and these organisations have >> guidelines that help to act as a framework for relations. >> >> Multistakeholderism in Working Groups and Committees >> >> This can also be seen with regard to Working Groups, take for example the >> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. >> >> The United Nations General Assembly, at its 67th session, adopted Resolution >> 67/195 on Information and communication technologies for development[9]. This >> Resolution invited the Chair of the United Nations Commission on Science >> and Technology for Development (UN CSTD)[10], to establish a working group >> on enhanced cooperation to examine the mandate of the World Summit on the >> Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained in the >> Tunis Agenda. >> >> The Tunis Agenda[11] pivots on focusing on financial mechanisms for >> bridging the digital divide, on Internet governance and related issues, as >> well as on implementation and follow-up of the Geneva and Tunis decisions. >> >> The GA RES 67/195 requested the Chair of the UN CSTD to "ensure that the >> working group on enhanced cooperation has balanced representation between >> Governments from the five regional groups of the Commission and invites >> other stakeholders, namely the private sector, civil society, technical and >> academic communities, and intergovernmental and international >> organisations". >> >> Challenges of Multistakeholderism: Issues within Civil Society >> >> In 2004, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) participated in a >> Civil Society Meeting in Berlin and identified principles and examined >> issues affecting Civil Society[12]. The meeting comprised of a >> representative from the ICANN At Large Advisory Committee[13], Humanistiche >> Union[14], Internet Governance Caucus Coordinator[15], the UN Non- >> Governmental Liaison Service[16], and African Civil Society for the >> Information Society[17] and Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship >> with the United Nations[18]. >> >> >> >> Principles that were identified in the 2004 meeting included: >> >> · Legitimacy; >> >> · Representation; >> >> · Transparency; and >> >> · Accountability. >> >> Issues of legitimacy, representation, transparency and accountability >> continue to surface over the years on a global, regional and national scale >> (Anja Kovacs & Nnenna Nwakanma). >> >> Navigating Through the Maze >> >> Just as context differs, whether it is for an organisation or a >> committee, it is important to acknowledge that context differs whether >> these are organisations or intergovernmental organisations that are subject >> to diverse rules and procedures. The United Nations for instance is bound >> by the Resolutions of its members as per the General Assembly and can only >> act when mandated. >> >> ICANN on the other hand is bound by its Bylaws and its Affirmation of >> Commitment. >> >> Similarly, the Working Groups are bound by their respective mandates >> whether these are in the form of formal documentation such as organizing >> instruments or where these are loosely organized in an ad hoc fashion. >> >> Whatever, the context, one thing is certain, bringing a diverse group of >> people poses significant challenges to building consensus and bridging >> relationships particularly when there are diverse if not polarized >> perspectives and strong views from various stakeholders. >> >> Purpose Precedes Method >> >> To this end, a practical means of dealing with diversity is to clearly >> establish the purpose from the outset (David Allen). After this is >> established, it is useful to develop the methods where the purpose(s) can >> be fulfilled (David Allen and Parminder). >> >> Given that the nature of Multistakeholder engagement implies the >> inclusion of civil society, private sector and the public sector, it >> follows that each categorization has unique concerns and characteristics >> that relate to its identity. >> >> Often the disenfranchisement, turf wars or propaganda is motivated by >> fears and it is important that these fears are addressed. Part of >> establishing purpose means to create a safe environment where genuine >> collaboration can commence. >> >> Multistakeholderism is not a replacement (David Allen) and does not take >> away from each component or part. Rather it is the sum of all parts. >> >> Multistakeholderism is not a policy making forum as this is reserved for >> democratic contexts (David Allen). >> >> Multistakeholderism is a means of moving towards greater engagement and >> enhanced cooperation among diverse stakeholders (Michael Gurstein). >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_Governance_Model >> >> [2] Statement by Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT for Change at >> the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review held by UNESCO from 25th to >> 27th February, 2013 >> >> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_Governance_Model >> >> [4] ibid >> >> [5] ibid >> >> [6] ibid >> >> [7] A Californian Non Profit Public-Benefit Corporation >> >> [8] http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws >> >> [9] http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ares67d195_en.pdf >> >> [10] Ambassador Miguel Palomino de la Gala is the current Chair of the >> UN CSTD >> >> [11] http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html >> >> [12] Meeting Record on Working Methods of Civil Society (20th November >> 2004), Berlin, Germany >> >> [13] Vittorio Bertola >> >> [14] Dr Christoph Bruch >> >> [15] Jeanette Hoffman >> >> [16] Ramin Kaweh >> >> [17] Nnenna Nwakanma >> >> [18] Rik Panganiban >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:30 AM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> >>> It is interesting to see that those who are amongst the most vocal and >>> public advocates for MSism are also those who refuse to actually indicate >>> what they mean by MSism. >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Oct 28 13:20:38 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:20:38 -0700 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> Message-ID: Guru, On Oct 27, 2014, at 11:25 PM, Guru Acharya wrote: > I don't think India wants to plunder Africa as you suggest. You are stating India wants IPv4 addresses to be redistributed. The largest remaining pool of unallocated addresses is held by AfriNIC. This sort of implies India wants to extract African resources, no? > You're limiting your thinking to the resources that are left in the IPv4 resource pool, Err. You said: "Im talking about IPv4." > while India may possibly be thinking of redistribution of resources that have already been allocated. As Daniel Kalchev notes, this is more colloquially known as "theft". >> There is a misunderstanding the role of APNIC's EC here. They do not make policy or represent anyone other than themselves. They ensure policy developed via the bottom-up community processes has followed the APNIC policy development process. > > Thats an incorrect representation of the work done by the APNIC EC. Please read the list of functions performed by the APNIC EC here I think I might know a bit about the role of APNIC's EC (having created it long ago). You asked in relation to the APNIC EC: "who will represent the people who are yet to connect to the internet (many such from India) if representation is limited to current resource holders?" If you read the page you referenced, you'll see that the APNIC EC members do NOT have a representative role. They do NOT (and more realistically, cannot) represent people, connected or not, from India or not, resource holders or not. The role of the EC is to oversee the proper operation of APNIC. Policy definition is left to the community via the policy definition process, defined by the community, that the APNIC EC oversees. There is no restriction about who can participate in policy definition processes. You do NOT have to be a current resource holder or even be connected to the Internet to participate. > Further, there are many issues like the IANA transition that fall outside the scope of the Policy SIG. For example, the APNIC EC was seen to have pushed its proposal (prepared by the EC and secretariat) for the IANA transition during APNIC38 in a top-down fashion. Are you really suggesting the APNIC EC has no role to play here as well? Not having been at APNIC38 nor closely followed APNIC's efforts related to the transition, I can't comment on specifics. However, if the APNIC EC has overstepped its role, I don't believe the correct solution would be to try to turn it into a representative body (which simply won't work), rather it would be for the membership to push back on the APNIC EC so that it operates within its tightly constrained role. Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO (and also a bit involved in the creation of APNIC and former APNIC DG), 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 bzs at world.std.com Tue Oct 28 15:39:36 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:39:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> Straw Man: The obvious solution to the IPv4 address distribution issues in Proposal 98 is to have a "flag day" after which IPv4 will no longer be used in the public internet. This would put everyone back on equal footing vis a vis address distribution and resolve this issue. I realize there are issues involved such as backwards compatability with older devices though V4/V6 gateways are well understood. Another issue is "by who's authority?!" But if for example the DNS root and Tier 1 etc (major connectivity providers) went along that would be authority enough. The objective is not to "outlaw" IPv4, just to make it exceedingly inconvenient for general use after that date (e.g., no more DNS resolutions from the root and others.) For discussion's sake I will propose 14 November 2020 00:00GMT which happens to be Diwali 2020 and a Saturday so Sunday across the date line. -- -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 Tue Oct 28 19:32:56 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:32:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Newsweek: Assange: Google Almost Identical to NSA... and other things Message-ID: <160b01cff307$814706b0$83d51410$@gmail.com> Google Almost Identical to NSA WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange speaks asEcuador WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange speaks as Ecuador's Foreign Affairs Minister Ricardo Patino listens, during a news conference at the Ecuadorian embassy in central London. (Photo: Reuters / John Stillwell) Published 19 September 2014 Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on email WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange compares Google to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as well as the British spy agency, GCHQ. Google has become “a privatized version of the NSA,” collecting, storing and indexing people’s data, Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange told BBC and Sky News Thursday. Speaking at a press conference at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, where he has lived since 2012 after being granted asylum by the Latin American country, Assange outlined the links between the internet giant and the U.S. and British spy agencies. “Google’s business model is the spy. It makes more than 80 percent of its money by collecting information about people, pooling it together, storing it, indexing it, building profiles of people to predict their interests and behavior, and then selling those profiles principally to advertisers, but also others,” said Assange. “So the result is that Google, in terms of how it works, its actual practice, is almost identical to the National Security Agency or GCHQ.” “They are formally listed as part of the defense industrial base since 2009. They have been engaged with the Prism system, where nearly all information collected by Google is available to the NSA,” Assange said. The whistleblower argues that “at the institutional level, Google is deeply involved in US foreign policy” and has been working with the NSA “in terms of contracts since at least 2002.” Assange recently released a new book titled "When Google Met WikiLeaks," produced during his stay at the Ecuadorian Embassy where he has been forced to seek refuge out of fear of being arrested by the British police and sent to the United States. In the book, Assange reveals details about his encounter with Google chairman, Eric Schmidt in 2011. *** Google Is Not What It Seems By Julian Assange, Newsweek 24 October 14 In June 2011, Julian Assange received an unusual visitor: the chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, arrived from America at Ellingham Hall, the country house in Norfolk, England where Assange was living under house arrest. For several hours the besieged leader of the world’s most famous insurgent publishing organization and the billionaire head of the world’s largest information empire locked horns. The two men debated the political problems faced by society, and the technological solutions engendered by the global network—from the Arab Spring to Bitcoin. They outlined radically opposing perspectives: for Assange, the liberating power of the Internet is based on its freedom and statelessness. For Schmidt, emancipation is at one with U.S. foreign policy objectives and is driven by connecting non-Western countries to Western companies and markets. These differences embodied a tug-of-war over the Internet’s future that has only gathered force subsequently. In this extract from When Google Met WikiLeaks Assange describes his encounter with Schmidt and how he came to conclude that it was far from an innocent exchange of views. cid:part63.06050302.00070901 at mail.ngo.zaric Schmidt is an influential figure, even among the parade of powerful characters with whom I have had to cross paths since I founded WikiLeaks. In mid-May 2011 I was under house arrest in rural Norfolk, England, about three hours’ drive northeast of London. The crackdown against our work was in full swing and every wasted moment seemed like an eternity. It was hard to get my attention. But when my colleague Joseph Farrell told me the executive chairman of Google wanted to make an appointment with me, I was listening. In some ways the higher echelons of Google seemed more distant and obscure to me than the halls of Washington. We had been locking horns with senior U.S. officials for years by that point. The mystique had worn off. But the power centers growing up in Silicon Valley were still opaque and I was suddenly conscious of an opportunity to understand and influence what was becoming the most influential company on earth. Schmidt had taken over as CEO of Google in 2001 and built it into an empire. I was intrigued that the mountain would come to Muhammad. But it was not until well after Schmidt and his companions had been and gone that I came to understand who had really visited me. The stated reason for the visit was a book. Schmidt was penning a treatise with Jared Cohen, the director of Google Ideas, an outfit that describes itself as Google’s in-house “think/do tank.” I knew little else about Cohen at the time. In fact, Cohen had moved to Google from the U.S. State Department in 2010. He had been a fast-talking “Generation Y” ideas man at State under two U.S. administrations, a courtier from the world of policy think tanks and institutes, poached in his early twenties. He became a senior advisor for Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton. At State, on the Policy Planning Staff, Cohen was soon christened “Condi’s party-starter,” channeling buzzwords from Silicon Valley into U.S. policy circles and producing delightful rhetorical concoctions such as “Public Diplomacy 2.0.” On his Council on Foreign Relations adjunct staff page he listed his expertise as “terrorism; radicalization; impact of connection technologies on 21st century statecraft; Iran.” It was Cohen who, while he was still at the Department of State, was said to have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to delay scheduled maintenance in order to assist the aborted 2009 uprising in Iran. His documented love affair with Google began the same year when he befriended Eric Schmidt as they together surveyed the post-occupation wreckage of Baghdad. Just months later, Schmidt re-created Cohen’s natural habitat within Google itself by engineering a “think/do tank” based in New York and appointing Cohen as its head. Google Ideas was born. Later that year two co-wrote a policy piece for the Council on Foreign Relations’ journal Foreign Affairs, praising the reformative potential of Silicon Valley technologies as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Describing what they called “coalitions of the connected,” Schmidt and Cohen claimed that: Democratic states that have built coalitions of their militaries have the capacity to do the same with their connection technologies.… They offer a new way to exercise the duty to protect citizens around the world [emphasis added]. Schmidt and Cohen said they wanted to interview me. I agreed. A date was set for June. By the time June came around there was already a lot to talk about. That summer WikiLeaks was still grinding through the release of U.S. diplomatic cables, publishing thousands of them every week. When, seven months earlier, we had first started releasing the cables, Hillary Clinton had denounced the publication as “an attack on the international community” that would “tear at the fabric” of government. It was into this ferment that Google projected itself that June, touching down at a London airport and making the long drive up into East Anglia to Norfolk and Beccles. Schmidt arrived first, accompanied by his then partner, Lisa Shields. When he introduced her as a vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations—a U.S. foreign-policy think tank with close ties to the State Department—I thought little more of it. Shields herself was straight out of Camelot, having been spotted by John Kennedy Jr.’s side back in the early 1990s. They sat with me and we exchanged pleasantries. They said they had forgotten their Dictaphone, so we used mine. We made an agreement that I would forward them the recording and in exchange they would forward me the transcript, to be corrected for accuracy and clarity. We began. Schmidt plunged in at the deep end, straightaway quizzing me on the organizational and technological underpinnings of WikiLeaks. Some time later Jared Cohen arrived. With him was Scott Malcomson, introduced as the book’s editor. Three months after the meeting Malcomson would enter the State Department as the lead speechwriter and principal advisor to Susan Rice (then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, now national security advisor). At this point, the delegation was one part Google, three parts U.S. foreign-policy establishment, but I was still none the wiser. Handshakes out of the way, we got down to business. Schmidt was a good foil. A late-fiftysomething, squint-eyed behind owlish spectacles, managerially dressed—Schmidt’s dour appearance concealed a machinelike analyticity. His questions often skipped to the heart of the matter, betraying a powerful nonverbal structural intelligence. It was the same intellect that had abstracted software-engineering principles to scale Google into a megacorp, ensuring that the corporate infrastructure always met the rate of growth. This was a person who understood how to build and maintain systems: systems of information and systems of people. My world was new to him, but it was also a world of unfolding human processes, scale and information flows. For a man of systematic intelligence, Schmidt’s politics—such as I could hear from our discussion—were surprisingly conventional, even banal. He grasped structural relationships quickly, but struggled to verbalize many of them, often shoehorning geopolitical subtleties into Silicon Valley marketese or the ossified State Department micro-language of his companions. He was at his best when he was speaking (perhaps without realizing it) as an engineer, breaking down complexities into their orthogonal components. I found Cohen a good listener, but a less interesting thinker, possessed of that relentless conviviality that routinely afflicts career generalists and Rhodes Scholars. As you would expect from his foreign-policy background, Cohen had a knowledge of international flash points and conflicts and moved rapidly between them, detailing different scenarios to test my assertions. But it sometimes felt as if he was riffing on orthodoxies in a way that was designed to impress his former colleagues in official Washington. Malcomson, older, was more pensive, his input thoughtful and generous. Shields was quiet for much of the conversation, taking notes, humoring the bigger egos around the table while she got on with the real work. As the interviewee, I was expected to do most of the talking. I sought to guide them into my worldview. To their credit, I consider the interview perhaps the best I have given. I was out of my comfort zone and I liked it. We ate and then took a walk in the grounds, all the while on the record. I asked Eric Schmidt to leak U.S. government information requests to WikiLeaks, and he refused, suddenly nervous, citing the illegality of disclosing Patriot Act requests. And then, as the evening came on, it was done and they were gone, back to the unreal, remote halls of information empire, and I was left to get back to my work. That was the end of it, or so I thought. Two months later, WikiLeaks’ release of State Department cables was coming to an abrupt end. For three-quarters of a year we had painstakingly managed the publication, pulling in over a hundred global media partners, distributing documents in their regions of influence and overseeing a worldwide, systematic publication and redaction system, fighting for maximum impact for our sources. But The Guardian newspaper—our former partner—had published the confidential decryption password to all 251,000 cables in a chapter heading in its book, rushed out hastily in February 2011. By mid-August we discovered that a former German employee—whom I had suspended in 2010—was cultivating business relationships with a variety of organizations and individuals by shopping around the location of the encrypted file, paired with the password’s whereabouts in the book. At the rate the information was spreading, we estimated that within two weeks most intelligence agencies, contractors and middlemen would have all the cables, but the public would not. I decided it was necessary to bring forward our publication schedule by four months and contact the State Department to get it on record that we had given them advance warning. The situation would then be harder to spin into another legal or political assault. Unable to raise Louis Susman, then U.S. ambassador to the U.K., we tried the front door. WikiLeaks investigations editor Sarah Harrison called the State Department front desk and informed the operator that “Julian Assange” wanted to have a conversation with Hillary Clinton. Predictably, this statement was initially greeted with bureaucratic disbelief. We soon found ourselves in a reenactment of that scene in Dr. Strangelove, where Peter Sellers cold-calls the White House to warn of an impending nuclear war and is immediately put on hold. As in the film, we climbed the hierarchy, speaking to incrementally more superior officials until we reached Clinton’s senior legal advisor. He told us he would call us back. We hung up, and waited. When the phone rang half an hour later, it was not the State Department on the other end of the line. Instead, it was Joseph Farrell, the WikiLeaks staffer who had set up the meeting with Google. He had just received an email from Lisa Shields seeking to confirm that it was indeed WikiLeaks calling the State Department. It was at this point that I realized Eric Schmidt might not have been an emissary of Google alone. Whether officially or not, he had been keeping some company that placed him very close to Washington, D.C., including a well-documented relationship with President Obama. Not only had Hillary Clinton’s people known that Eric Schmidt’s partner had visited me, but they had also elected to use her as a back channel. While WikiLeaks had been deeply involved in publishing the inner archive of the U.S. State Department, the U.S. State Department had, in effect, snuck into the WikiLeaks command center and hit me up for a free lunch. Two years later, in the wake of his early 2013 visits to China, North Korea and Burma, it would come to be appreciated that the chairman of Google might be conducting, in one way or another, “back-channel diplomacy” for Washington. But at the time it was a novel thought . I put it aside until February 2012, when WikiLeaks—along with over thirty of our international media partners—began publishing the Global Intelligence Files: the internal email spool from the Texas-based private intelligence firm Stratfor. One of our stronger investigative partners—the Beirut-based newspaper Al Akhbar— scoured the emails for intelligence on Jared Cohen. The people at Stratfor, who liked to think of themselves as a sort of corporate CIA, were acutely conscious of other ventures that they perceived as making inroads into their sector. Google had turned up on their radar. In a series of colorful emails they discussed a pattern of activity conducted by Cohen under the Google Ideas aegis, suggesting what the “do” in “think/do tank” actually means. Cohen’s directorate appeared to cross over from public relations and “corporate responsibility” work into active corporate intervention in foreign affairs at a level that is normally reserved for states. Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s “director of regime change.” According to the emails, he was trying to plant his fingerprints on some of the major historical events in the contemporary Middle East. He could be placed in Egypt during the revolution, meeting with Wael Ghonim, the Google employee whose arrest and imprisonment hours later would make him a PR-friendly symbol of the uprising in the Western press. Meetings had been planned in Palestine and Turkey, both of which—claimed Stratfor emails—were killed by the senior Google leadership as too risky. Only a few months before he met with me, Cohen was planning a trip to the edge of Iran in Azerbaijan to “engage the Iranian communities closer to the border,” as part of a Google Ideas’ project on “repressive societies.” In internal emails Stratfor’s vice president for intelligence, Fred Burton (himself a former State Department security official), wrote : Google is getting WH [White House] and State Dept support and air cover. In reality they are doing things the CIA cannot do… [Cohen] is going to get himself kidnapped or killed. Might be the best thing to happen to expose Google’s covert role in foaming up-risings, to be blunt. The US Gov’t can then disavow knowledge and Google is left holding the shit-bag. In further internal communication , Burton said his sources on Cohen’s activities were Marty Lev—Google’s director of security and safety—and Eric Schmidt himself. Looking for something more concrete, I began to search in WikiLeaks’ archive for information on Cohen. State Department cables released as part of Cablegate reveal that Cohen had been in Afghanistan in 2009, trying to convince the four major Afghan mobile phone companies to move their antennas onto U.S. military bases. In Lebanon, he quietly worked to establish an intellectual and clerical rival to Hezbollah, the “Higher Shia League.” And in London he offered Bollywood movie executives funds to insert anti-extremist content into their films, and promised to connect them to related networks in Hollywood. Three days after he visited me at Ellingham Hall, Jared Cohen flew to Ireland to direct the “Save Summit ,” an event co-sponsored by Google Ideas and the Council on Foreign Relations. Gathering former inner-city gang members, right-wing militants, violent nationalists and “religious extremists” from all over the world together in one place, the event aimed to workshop technological solutions to the problem of “violent extremism.” What could go wrong? Cohen’s world seems to be one event like this after another: endless soirees for the cross-fertilization of influence between elites and their vassals, under the pious rubric of “civil society.” The received wisdom in advanced capitalist societies is that there still exists an organic “civil society sector” in which institutions form autonomously and come together to manifest the interests and will of citizens. The fable has it that the boundaries of this sector are respected by actors from government and the “private sector,” leaving a safe space for NGOs and nonprofits to advocate for things like human rights, free speech and accountable government. This sounds like a great idea. But if it was ever true, it has not been for decades. Since at least the 1970s, authentic actors like unions and churches have folded under a sustained assault by free-market statism, transforming “civil society” into a buyer’s market for political factions and corporate interests looking to exert influence at arm’s length. The last forty years have seen a huge proliferation of think tanks and political NGOs whose purpose, beneath all the verbiage, is to execute political agendas by proxy. It is not just obvious neocon front groups like Foreign Policy Initiative. It also includes fatuous Western NGOs like Freedom House, where naïve but well-meaning career nonprofit workers are twisted in knots by political funding streams, denouncing non-Western human rights violations while keeping local abuses firmly in their blind spots. The civil society conference circuit—which flies developing-world activists across the globe hundreds of times a year to bless the unholy union between “government and private stakeholders” at geopoliticized events like the “Stockholm Internet Forum”—simply could not exist if it were not blasted with millions of dollars in political funding annually. Scan the memberships of the biggest U.S. think tanks and institutes and the same names keep cropping up. Cohen’s Save Summit went on to seed AVE, or AgainstViolentExtremism.org, a long-term project whose principal backer besides Google Ideas is the Gen Next Foundation. This foundation’s website says it is an “exclusive membership organization and platform for successful individuals” that aims to bring about “social change” driven by venture capital funding. Gen Next’s “private sector and non-profit foundation support avoids some of the potential perceived conflicts of interest faced by initiatives funded by governments.” Jared Cohen is an executive member. Gen Next also backs an NGO , launched by Cohen toward the end of his State Department tenure, for bringing Internet-based global “pro-democracy activists” into the U.S. foreign relations patronage network. The group originated as the “Alliance of Youth Movements” with an inaugural summit in New York City in 2008 funded by the State Department and encrusted with the logos of corporate sponsors . The summit flew in carefully selected social media activists from “problem areas” like Venezuela and Cuba to watch speeches by the Obama campaign’s new-media team and the State Department’s James Glassman, and to network with public relations consultants, “philanthropists,” and U.S. media personalities. The outfit held two more invite-only summits in London and Mexico City where the delegates were directly addressed via video link by Hillary Clinton: You are the vanguard of a rising generation of citizen activists.… And that makes you the kind of leaders we need. In 2011, the Alliance of Youth Movements rebranded as “Movements.org.” In 2012 Movements.org became a division of “Advancing Human Rights,” a new NGO set up by Robert L. Bernstein after he resigned from Human Rights Watch (which he had originally founded) because he felt it should not cover Israeli and U.S. human rights abuses. Advancing Human Rights aims to right Human Rights Watch’s wrong by focusing exclusively on “dictatorships.” Cohen stated that the merger of his Movements.org outfit with Advancing Human Rights was “irresistible,” pointing to the latter’s “phenomenal network of cyber-activists in the Middle East and North Africa.” He then joined the Advancing Human Rights board , which also includes Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in occupied Afghanistan. In its present guise, Movements.org continues to receive funding from Gen Next, as well as from Google, MSNBC and PR giant Edelman, which represents General Electric, Boeing, and Shell, among others. Google Ideas is bigger, but it follows the same game plan. Glance down the speaker lists of its annual invite-only get-togethers, such as “Crisis in a Connected World” in October 2013. Social network theorists and activists give the event a veneer of authenticity, but in truth it boasts a toxic piñata of attendees: U.S. officials, telecom magnates, security consultants, finance capitalists and foreign-policy tech vultures like Alec Ross (Cohen’s twin at the State Department). At the hard core are the arms contractors and career military: active U.S. Cyber Command chieftains, and even the admiral responsible for all U.S. military operations in Latin America from 2006 to 2009. Tying up the package are Jared Cohen and the chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt. I began to think of Schmidt as a brilliant but politically hapless Californian tech billionaire who had been exploited by the very U.S. foreign-policy types he had collected to act as translators between himself and official Washington—a West Coast–East Coast illustration of the principal-agent dilemma. I was wrong. Eric Schmidt was born in Washington, D.C., where his father had worked as a professor and economist for the Nixon Treasury. He attended high school in Arlington, Virginia, before graduating with a degree in engineering from Princeton. In 1979, Schmidt headed out West to Berkeley, where he received his Ph.D. before joining Stanford/ Berkeley spin-off Sun Microsystems in 1983. By the time he left Sun, sixteen years later, he had become part of its executive leadership. Sun had significant contracts with the U.S. government, but it was not until he was in Utah as CEO of Novell that records show Schmidt strategically engaging Washington’s overt political class. Federal campaign finance records show that on January 6, 1999, Schmidt donated two lots of $1,000 to the Republican senator for Utah, Orrin Hatch. On the same day Schmidt’s wife, Wendy, is also listed giving two lots of $1,000 to Senator Hatch. By the start of 2001, over a dozen other politicians and PACs, including Al Gore, George W. Bush, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, were on the Schmidts’ payroll, in one case for $100,000. By 2013, Eric Schmidt—who had become publicly over-associated with the Obama White House—was more politic. Eight Republicans and eight Democrats were directly funded, as were two PACs. That April, $32,300 went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. A month later the same amount, $32,300, headed off to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Why Schmidt was donating exactly the same amount of money to both parties is a $64,600 question. It was also in 1999 that Schmidt joined the board of a Washington, D.C.–based group: the New America Foundation, a merger of well-connected centrist forces (in D.C. terms). The foundation and its 100 staff serve as an influence mill, using its network of approved national security, foreign policy and technology pundits to place hundreds of articles and op-eds per year. By 2008, Schmidt had become chairman of its board of directors. As of 2013 the New America Foundation’s principal funders (each contributing over $1 million) were listed as Eric and Wendy Schmidt, the U.S. State Department and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Secondary funders include Google, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Radio Free Asia. Schmidt’s involvement in the New America Foundation places him firmly in the Washington establishment nexus. The foundation’s other board members , seven of whom also list themselves as members of the Council on Foreign Relations, include Francis Fukuyama, one of the intellectual fathers of the neoconservative movement; Rita Hauser, who served on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board under both Bush and Obama; Jonathan Soros, the son of George Soros; Walter Russell Mead, a U.S. security strategist and editor of the American Interest; Helene Gayle, who sits on the boards of Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, the Rockefeller Foundation, the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Unit, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the White House Fellows program and Bono’s ONE Campaign; and Daniel Yergin, oil geo-strategist, former chair of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Task Force. The chief executive of the foundation, appointed in 2013, is Jared Cohen’s former boss at the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, Anne-Marie Slaughter , a Princeton law and international relations wonk with an eye for revolving doors. She is everywhere, issuing calls for Obama to respond to the Ukraine crisis not only by deploying covert U.S. forces into the country but also by dropping bombs on Syria—on the basis that this will send a message to Russia and China. Along with Schmidt, she is a 2013 attendee of the Bilderberg conference and sits on the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board . There was nothing politically hapless about Eric Schmidt. I had been too eager to see a politically unambitious Silicon Valley engineer, a relic of the good old days of computer science graduate culture on the West Coast. But that is not the sort of person who attends the Bilderberg conference four years running, who pays regular visits to the White House, or who delivers “fireside chats” at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Schmidt’s emergence as Google’s “foreign minister”—making pomp and ceremony state visits across geopolitical fault lines—had not come out of nowhere; it had been presaged by years of assimilation within U.S. establishment networks of reputation and influence. On a personal level, Schmidt and Cohen are perfectly likable people. But Google’s chairman is a classic “head of industry” player, with all of the ideological baggage that comes with that role. Schmidt fits exactly where he is: the point where the centrist, liberal and imperialist tendencies meet in American political life. By all appearances, Google’s bosses genuinely believe in the civilizing power of enlightened multinational corporations, and they see this mission as continuous with the shaping of the world according to the better judgment of the “benevolent superpower.” They will tell you that open-mindedness is a virtue, but all perspectives that challenge the exceptionalist drive at the heart of American foreign policy will remain invisible to them. This is the impenetrable banality of “don’t be evil.” They believe that they are doing good. And that is a problem. Google is different. Google is visionary. Google is the future. Google is more than just a company. Google gives back to the community. Google is a force for good. Even when Google airs its corporate ambivalence publicly , it does little to dislodge these items of faith. The company’s reputation is seemingly unassailable. Google’s colorful, playful logo is imprinted on human retinas just under 6 billion times each day , 2.1 trillion times a year—an opportunity for respondent conditioning enjoyed by no other company in history. Caught red-handed last year making petabytes of personal data available to the U.S. intelligence community through the PRISM program, Google nevertheless continues to coast on the goodwill generated by its “don’t be evil” doublespeak. A few symbolic open letters to the White House later and it seems all is forgiven. Even anti-surveillance campaigners cannot help themselves, at once condemning government spying but trying to alter Google’s invasive surveillance practices using appeasement strategies. Nobody wants to acknowledge that Google has grown big and bad. But it has. Schmidt’s tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of U.S. power structures as it expanded into a geographically invasive megacorporation. But Google has always been comfortable with this proximity. Long before company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin hired Schmidt in 2001, their initial research upon which Google was based had been partly funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). And even as Schmidt’s Google developed an image as the overly friendly giant of global tech, it was building a close relationship with the intelligence community. In 2003, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had already started systematically violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) under its director General Michael Hayden. These were the days of the “Total Information Awareness” program. Before PRISM was ever dreamed of, under orders from the Bush White House the NSA was already aiming to “collect it all, sniff it all, know it all, process it all, exploit it all.” During the same period, Google—whose publicly declared corporate mission is to collect and “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”—was accepting NSA money to the tune of $2 million to provide the agency with search tools for its rapidly accreting hoard of stolen knowledge. In 2004, after taking over Keyhole, a mapping tech startup co-funded by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the CIA, Google developed the technology into Google Maps, an enterprise version of which it has since shopped to the Pentagon and associated federal and state agencies on multimillion-dollar contracts . In 2008, Google helped launch an NGA spy satellite, the GeoEye-1, into space. Google shares the photographs from the satellite with the U.S. military and intelligence communities. In 2010, NGA awarded Google a $27 million contract for “geospatial visualization services.” In 2010, after the Chinese government was accused of hacking Google, the company entered into a “formal information-sharing” relationship with the NSA, which was said to allow NSA analysts to “evaluate vulnerabilities” in Google’s hardware and software. Although the exact contours of the deal have never been disclosed, the NSA brought in other government agencies to help, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Around the same time, Google was becoming involved in a program known as the “Enduring Security Framework” (ESF), which entailed the sharing of information between Silicon Valley tech companies and Pentagon-affiliated agencies “at network speed.” Emails obtained in 2014 under Freedom of Information requests show Schmidt and his fellow Googler Sergey Brin corresponding on first-name terms with NSA chief General Keith Alexander about ESF. Reportage on the emails focused on the familiarity in the correspondence: “General Keith…so great to see you…!” Schmidt wrote. But most reports over-looked a crucial detail. “Your insights as a key member of the Defense Industrial Base,” Alexander wrote to Brin, “are valuable to ensure ESF’s efforts have measurable impact.” The Department of Homeland Security defines the Defense Industrial Base as “the worldwide industrial complex that enables research and development, as well as design, production, delivery, and maintenance of military weapons systems, subsystems, and components or parts, to meet U.S. military requirements [emphasis added].” The Defense Industrial Base provides “products and services that are essential to mobilize, deploy, and sustain military operations.” Does it include regular commercial services purchased by the U.S. military? No. The definition specifically excludes the purchase of regular commercial services. Whatever makes Google a “key member of the Defense Industrial Base,” it is not recruitment campaigns pushed out through Google AdWords or soldiers checking their Gmail. In 2012, Google arrived on the list of top-spending Washington, D.C., lobbyists —a list typically stalked exclusively by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, military contractors, and the petro-carbon leviathans. Google entered the rankings above military aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, with a total of $18.2 million spent in 2012 to Lockheed’s $15.3 million. Boeing, the military contractor that absorbed McDonnell Douglas in 1997, also came below Google, at $15.6 million spent, as did Northrop Grumman at $17.5 million. In autumn 2013 the Obama administration was trying to drum up support for U.S. airstrikes against Syria. Despite setbacks, the administration continued to press for military action well into September with speeches and public announcements by both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. On September 10, Google lent its front page—the most popular on the Internet—to the war effort, inserting a line below the search box reading “Live! Secretary Kerry answers questions on Syria. Today via Hangout at 2pm ET.” As the self-described “radical centrist” New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote in 1999 , sometimes it is not enough to leave the global dominance of American tech corporations to something as mercurial as “the free market”: The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. If anything has changed since those words were written, it is that Silicon Valley has grown restless with that passive role, aspiring instead to adorn the hidden fist like a velvet glove. Writing in 2013, Schmidt and Cohen stated, What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century, technology and cyber-security companies will be to the twenty-first. One way of looking at it is that it’s just business. For an American Internet services monopoly to ensure global market dominance, it cannot simply keep doing what it is doing and let politics take care of itself. American strategic and economic hegemony becomes a vital pillar of its market dominance. What’s a megacorp to do? If it wants to straddle the world, it must become part of the original “don’t be evil” empire. But part of the resilient image of Google as “more than just a company” comes from the perception that it does not act like a big, bad corporation. Its penchant for luring people into its services trap with gigabytes of “free storage” produces the perception that Google is giving it away for free, acting directly contrary to the corporate profit motive. Google is perceived as an essentially philanthropic enterprise—a magical engine presided over by otherworldly visionaries—for creating a utopian future . The company has at times appeared anxious to cultivate this image, pouring funding into “corporate responsibility” initiatives to produce “social change”—exemplified by Google Ideas. But as Google Ideas shows, the company’s “philanthropic” efforts, too, bring it uncomfortably close to the imperial side of U.S. influence. If Blackwater/Xe Services/Academi was running a program like Google Ideas, it would draw intense critical scrutiny. But somehow Google gets a free pass. Whether it is being just a company or “more than just a company,” Google’s geopolitical aspirations are firmly enmeshed within the foreign-policy agenda of the world’s largest superpower. As Google’s search and Internet service monopoly grows, and as it enlarges its industrial surveillance cone to cover the majority of the world’s population, rapidly dominating the mobile phone market and racing to extend Internet access in the global south , Google is steadily becoming the Internet for many people. Its influence on the choices and behavior of the totality of individual human beings translates to real power to influence the course of history. If the future of the Internet is to be Google, that should be of serious concern to people all over the world—in Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the former Soviet Union and even in Europe —for whom the Internet embodies the promise of an alternative to U.S. cultural, economic, and strategic hegemony. A “don’t be evil” empire is still an empire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Untitled attachment 03507.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 59596 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Untitled attachment 03510.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 613 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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 20:17:34 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:17:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [JNC - Forum] FW: Newsweek: Assange: Google Almost Identical to NSA... and other things In-Reply-To: References: <160b01cff307$814706b0$83d51410$@gmail.com> <163a01cff308$9bf20090$d3d601b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <165f01cff30d$bd9ef770$38dce650$@gmail.com> Even better is the whole article with pictures from Eric Schmidt instagram. Lol. https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ [MG>] yes, much better and with some great endnotes. M On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:40 AM, michael gurstein wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Tue Oct 28 23:17:43 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:17:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?JNC_statement_=22Governing_the_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?global_Internet_=96_is_the_status_quo_the_only_option=3F?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=22?= In-Reply-To: References: <20141028113451.02a33891@quill> Message-ID: Indeed. The JNC seem very upset that the US has a fair bit of soft power within the Internet governance world, largely as a result of its history of having invented the Internet, having had a historically very successful ICT industry, etc. Now, I'm all for criticising the USG for its hypocritical stances on IG related matters (promoting MSism with one hand, policy laundering the demands of the IP lobby in the TTPA etc with the other). And I'm all for removing the historical special role of the USG in the IANA contract etc. But soft power isn't just about the government, but about cultural and political values. The US government may be hypocritical and on occasion somewhat corrupted, but besides capitalism, the cultural and political values of the US include democracy, freedom of speech, etc. I'm not claiming they are consistently manifested, but... it does seem odd that a group that so consistently talks about democracy in its rhetoric, is so keen to decrease the soft power of a democratic nation, in favour of the ITU, a forum in which (as it gives equal status to states regardless of their form of government) nations that are either explicitly undemocratic (KSA, China) or weaker (to the point of lip service only) in their commitment to democracy (Russia) are relatively far stronger. It isn't that I object to the democratic rhetoric of the JNC per se - it is just that somehow, opposition to capitalism always seems to be a more important value to them in practice, and empowering nations that are hostile to democracy always seems a price the JNC are willing (even keen) to pay in order to oppose US corporations. Of course the JNC are welcome to espouse any ideological position they wish - but the constant highlighting of democracy in JNC rhetoric is either naive or disingenuous when the only practical positions the JNC ever takes are to revert to forms of governance that give more influence to undemocratic states. Cheers David On 28 Oct 2014, at 11:36 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I stopped reading once the straw man came out: > "…decision making by self-selected elites, otherwise known by the name “multistakeholder governance”. Centrally, this position advocates an 'equal footing' multistakeholder model for global governance of the Internet, whereby global corporations are given the same level of power as governments in deciding public policy issues." > > -- > 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 Oct 28, 2014, at 3:34 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> The new JNC statement "Governing the global Internet – is the status >> quo the only option?" is available at >> >> http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014_Stmt2.pdf >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Tue Oct 28 23:19:11 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:19:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <544F8D36.3000705@digsys.bg> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <544F8D36.3000705@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <1EC28777-135E-402B-99C2-8CEFD1B2826E@difference.com.au> I find myself in general agreement with McTim and Daniel. Arguing for equity on a Westphalian basis, or even on a population basis, does not seem helpful, especially in retrospect. And we have a good solution that will be helpful for practical solutions to this problem - IPv6. India's proposal seems a bad political attempt to solve a problem for which there are good technical solutions available. David On 28 Oct 2014, at 8:33 pm, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 28.10.14 13:49, JFC Morfin wrote: >> At 10:12 28/10/2014, McTim wrote: >> >>> I will be happy to declare a victory if I can convince you that >>> thinking of >>> IP resource distribution in Westphalian terms isn't useful. >> >> dear Guru and McTim, >> >> I would be happy to declare peace the day [inapropriate] dogmatisms are >> removed from where they do not belong. Please stop thinking in "XIXth >> reviewing XVIIth" paradigms. The (uncompleted) XXIth paradigm has been >> explicited by IEEE, IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C in RFC 6852 and the way to >> administratively address it by IETF, ITU, ICANN and W3C in RFC 2691. >> >> What is archaic is the IPv6 and IDNS management entrusted to governance >> structures designed by the NTIA to manage IPv4 and the US-DNS and the >> adoration of the gods of administrative and technical status-quoes. >> >> Did any of you heard about LISP, NDN, SDN, ISO layer six, IEN 48 >> objective, etc? > > Excuse my intrusion in this higher-than-my-desire-to-argue level of > discussion, but... > > Remember X.400? An arguably better designed, better specified and > documented protocol than SMTP, yet it failed miserably. > > Why? Because the intents were malicious. > > Humans seek freedom. And even when they appear to bend under governance > "for the greater good", they still continue to seek freedom. > > It is indeed appropriate to remove the dogmatism in this discussion and > replace it with common sense. > > The common sense says this initiative will fail. It also says this will > be yet another good example, which will be ignored, as usual. > For it is in human nature to try to demonstrate you are better (choice) > than the other guy/gal (nothing to do with technology). > > Yep, I know.. ;) > > Daniel > > PS: In any case, do not mind being enlightened about the subtle > political differences between IPv6 and IPv4 address space management. To > my engineer mind, both are numbers. Might be the size difference creates > a new dimension? > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 29 00:41:48 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:11:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> For a long time I have believed, and in fact still do, that a transnational system of naming, numbering, and routing of Internet traffic, which does not fully map on to sovereign boundaries, is an excellent check on the national state's inherent tendency to use possible controls on a nation's informational space for illegitimate purposes. However, for this purpose, that particular transnational system has to be fair and just, and democratic. And since nothing is perfect, it should at least show marked tendencies in the direction of becoming fair, just and democratic. The problem however is that the current transnational system - managed by the ICANN family of institutions - and of course under significant US control - shows no such signs of becoming what it needs to become, ie fair, just and democratic. Developing countries, including India, have for decades been crying hoarse, pleading, 'please, become more fair and democratic...'. Such appeals get the most humiliating responses - from a stony silence, to, well, 'we made the Internet, and so have some regard and patience'. India, and some others like Brazil, at least must be credited for being extremely patient and conciliatory. (I sometime marvel how they have been so patient .) But all this to no avail. The hegemony stays unshaken, just gets more and more strengthened by the day.... (Unfortunately, most of, what goes in the name of, civil society in the IG space has consistently supported this hegemony, *for all practical purposes* but let me not digress.) In the circumstances, I think that any self respecting country has no other option but to say, ok, if you just refuse to budge on the international regime, let the sovereign countries do these things themselves - meaning, naming, numbering, and routing processes. The rule of democratic law must apply, and if it cannot apply through international regimes, then let it be through separate national ones. That is what the India proposal is about. As I said, I still think that a positive tension between a (fair and democratic) transnational system and a more close-to-things and implementable national one is the best thing in this space, is best for the Internet, generally, speaking. But if those who squat in the positions of power and control over the current global regime (see Just Net Coalition's latest statement ) simply refuse to hear, I think that it is absolutely fair for a country like India to bring such a resolution to any appropriate global governance forum, as it has to the ITU Plenipotentiary. In fact it wont be doing its duty if it were not to so such a thing. I hope more countries back this resolution, and it serves to create positive tension vis a vis the current unacceptable global regime, out of which contestation something good, which is the best for the global public interest comes out.. parminder On Monday 27 October 2014 03:28 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > */[MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with > many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… /* > > instructs the Secretary General > 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and > intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management > to develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different > countries are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution > of IP addresses accordingly; > 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including > International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies > for allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including > naming, numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, > just, democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities > designated with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning > resources and dealing with day-to-day technical and operational matters; > 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks > that addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, > resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide > guidance on technical capabilities to developing countries; > 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for > the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region > takes place within the country; > 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic > originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; > 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing > the network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability > of communication; > 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the > weaknesses of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop > and recommend secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the > requirements of future networks in view of the envisaged manifold > increase in traffic and end devices in near future in the light of IoT > and M2M needs; > 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Oct 29 01:56:42 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:26:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?JNC_statement_=22Governing_the_global_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Internet_=E2=80=93_is_the_status_quo_the_only_option=3F=22?= In-Reply-To: References: <20141028113451.02a33891@quill> Message-ID: <1495a7a35d8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Jnc is old style propaganda so my money is on disingenuous rather than naive And yes, I have noted much the same irony dressed up in seemingly progressive jargon On 29 October 2014 8:48:15 am David Cake wrote: > Indeed. > > The JNC seem very upset that the US has a fair bit of soft power within the > Internet governance world, largely as a result of its history of having > invented the Internet, having had a historically very successful ICT > industry, etc. > > Now, I'm all for criticising the USG for its hypocritical stances on IG > related matters (promoting MSism with one hand, policy laundering the > demands of the IP lobby in the TTPA etc with the other). And I'm all for > removing the historical special role of the USG in the IANA contract etc. > But soft power isn't just about the government, but about cultural and > political values. The US government may be hypocritical and on occasion > somewhat corrupted, but besides capitalism, the cultural and political > values of the US include democracy, freedom of speech, etc. I'm not > claiming they are consistently manifested, but... it does seem odd that a > group that so consistently talks about democracy in its rhetoric, is so > keen to decrease the soft power of a democratic nation, in favour of the > ITU, a forum in which (as it gives equal status to states regardless of > their form of government) nations that are either explicitly undemocratic > (KSA, China) or weaker (to the point of lip service only) in their > commitment to democracy (Russia) are relatively far stronger. > > It isn't that I object to the democratic rhetoric of the JNC per se - it is > just that somehow, opposition to capitalism always seems to be a more > important value to them in practice, and empowering nations that are > hostile to democracy always seems a price the JNC are willing (even keen) > to pay in order to oppose US corporations. Of course the JNC are welcome to > espouse any ideological position they wish - but the constant highlighting > of democracy in JNC rhetoric is either naive or disingenuous when the only > practical positions the JNC ever takes are to revert to forms of governance > that give more influence to undemocratic states. > > Cheers > > David > > On 28 Oct 2014, at 11:36 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > I stopped reading once the straw man came out: > > "…decision making by self-selected elites, otherwise known by the name > “multistakeholder governance”. Centrally, this position advocates an 'equal > footing' multistakeholder model for global governance of the Internet, > whereby global corporations are given the same level of power as > governments in deciding public policy issues." > > > > -- > > 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 Oct 28, 2014, at 3:34 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > >> Dear all > >> > >> The new JNC statement "Governing the global Internet – is the status > >> quo the only option?" is available at > >> > >> http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014_Stmt2.pdf > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Wed Oct 29 02:37:32 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:37:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 29 Oct 2014, at 12:41 pm, parminder wrote: > For a long time I have believed, and in fact still do, that a transnational system of naming, numbering, and routing of Internet traffic, which does not fully map on to sovereign boundaries, is an excellent check on the national state's inherent tendency to use possible controls on a nation's informational space for illegitimate purposes. Well, it is great when we can agree. > However, for this purpose, that particular transnational system has to be fair and just, and democratic. And since nothing is perfect, it should at least show marked tendencies in the direction of becoming fair, just and democratic. Do you believe that allocation based on need for IPv4 was not fair and just? I'd add that I, personally, would have to add 'objective and rational' to the list of desirable characteristics, because India seems to be proposing something that seems on the face of it to approach what seems to satisfy some of its principles, yet is poorly though out and probably unimplementable... > The problem however is that the current transnational system - managed by the ICANN family of institutions - and of course under significant US control - shows no such signs of becoming what it needs to become, ie fair, just and democratic. > > Developing countries, including India, have for decades been crying hoarse, pleading, 'please, become more fair and democratic...'. Well, crying some variant of 'please give more power to national governments', and claiming it's all about democracy while sitting next to China and Russia and the KSA etc... > Such appeals get the most humiliating responses - from a stony silence, to, well, 'we made the Internet, and so have some regard and patience'. Or the observation that claiming it is all about democracy while enlisting the support of China and Russia against a system backed by a wide range of democratic nations looks a bit suspicious..... > India, and some others like Brazil, at least must be credited for being extremely patient and conciliatory. (I sometime marvel how they have been so patient .) But all this to no avail. The hegemony stays unshaken, just gets more and more strengthened by the day.... (Unfortunately, most of, what goes in the name of, civil society in the IG space has consistently supported this hegemony, *for all practical purposes* but let me not digress.) Cries to become more democratic aside (I've already observed that JNC rhetoric about democracy seems to frequently end up calling for solutions that seem somewhat un-democratic to me, so we are unlikely to agree unless you are willing to break with the JNC general push towards the ITU), do you have an issue with the current process or result? So, do you have a problem with the actual allocation of IP#s followed by the RIRs? You would have proposed a different principle than allocation via need, so slowing internet deployment in early adopting areas? > In the circumstances, I think that any self respecting country has no other option but to say, ok, if you just refuse to budge on the international regime, let the sovereign countries do these things themselves - meaning, naming, numbering, and routing processes. > The rule of democratic law must apply, and if it cannot apply through international regimes, then let it be through separate national ones. That is what the India proposal is about. Ah, yes, the ever popular JNC line of 'in order to make it more democratic, it is important to empower state based governance even when its undemocratic'. I'm still not able to reconcile the rhetoric with the result. Cheers David > As I said, I still think that a positive tension between a (fair and democratic) transnational system and a more close-to-things and implementable national one is the best thing in this space, is best for the Internet, generally, speaking. But if those who squat in the positions of power and control over the current global regime (see Just Net Coalition's latest statement ) simply refuse to hear, I think that it is absolutely fair for a country like India to bring such a resolution to any appropriate global governance forum, as it has to the ITU Plenipotentiary. In fact it wont be doing its duty if it were not to so such a thing. > > I hope more countries back this resolution, and it serves to create positive tension vis a vis the current unacceptable global regime, out of which contestation something good, which is the best for the global public interest comes out.. > > parminder > > On Monday 27 October 2014 03:28 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… >> >> instructs the Secretary General >> 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP addresses accordingly; >> 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities designated with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning resources and dealing with day-to-day technical and operational matters; >> 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance on technical capabilities to developing countries; >> 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes place within the country; >> 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; >> 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of communication; >> 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the weaknesses of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and recommend secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the requirements of future networks in view of the envisaged manifold increase in traffic and end devices in near future in the light of IoT and M2M needs; >> 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Forum mailing list >> Forum at justnetcoalition.org >> http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.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 -------------- 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 gurcharya at gmail.com Wed Oct 29 04:09:49 2014 From: gurcharya at gmail.com (Guru Acharya) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:39:49 +0530 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> Message-ID: In-line On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:50 PM, David Conrad wrote: > >> There is a misunderstanding the role of APNIC's EC here. They do not > make policy or represent anyone other than themselves. They ensure policy > developed via the bottom-up community processes has followed the APNIC > policy development process. > > > > Thats an incorrect representation of the work done by the APNIC EC. > Please read the list of functions performed by the APNIC EC here > > I think I might know a bit about the role of APNIC's EC (having created it > long ago). You asked in relation to the APNIC EC: > > Then you must have drafted function (e) of the APNIC EC. Please do explain the scope of "(e) To consider broad Internet policy issues in order to ensure that APNIC's policies and strategies fully respond to the constantly changing Internet environment;" In contrast, the scope of Policy SIG is limited to "policy issues related to management and use of IP resources". Don't you think IANA Transition is one of these "broad internet policy issues" that is outside the scope of the Policy SIG and within the scope of the APNIC EC due to the scope of function (e)? I can think of numerous other examples (say position at NETmundial on human right principles) that fall in the realm of "broad internet policy issues" - i.e. within the scope of the EC and outside the scope of the SIG. Don't you see a loophole there? > > Further, there are many issues like the IANA transition that fall > outside the scope of the Policy SIG. For example, the APNIC EC was seen to > have pushed its proposal (prepared by the EC and secretariat) for the IANA > transition during APNIC38 in a top-down fashion. Are you really suggesting > the APNIC EC has no role to play here as well? > > Not having been at APNIC38 nor closely followed APNIC's efforts related to > the transition, I can't comment on specifics. However, if the APNIC EC has > overstepped its role, I don't believe the correct solution would be to try > to turn it into a representative body (which simply won't work), rather it > would be for the membership to push back on the APNIC EC so that it > operates within its tightly constrained role. > > I don't see the membership pushing the EC back to its constrained role. Maybe something failed somewhere in your design. > Regards, > -drc > (ICANN CTO (and also a bit involved in the creation of APNIC and former > APNIC DG), but speaking only for myself. Really.) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 29 04:37:51 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:37:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC assessment of the 2014 IGF In-Reply-To: <54509859.5050101@apc.org> References: <54509859.5050101@apc.org> Message-ID: <5450A75F.3060507@apc.org> 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 africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF2014 assessmentFINAL_27102014_FOR SUBMISSION.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 145724 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 sathish.s at basixindia.com Wed Oct 29 05:06:22 2014 From: sathish.s at basixindia.com (sathish) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:36:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] governance-unsubscribe@lists.igcaucus.org. In-Reply-To: <5450A75F.3060507@apc.org> References: <54509859.5050101@apc.org> <5450A75F.3060507@apc.org> Message-ID: <000e01cff357$9ea82e00$dbf88a00$@s@basixindia.com> governance-unsubscribe at lists.igcaucus.org. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:08 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] APC assessment of the 2014 IGF 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 africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient(s) to whom they are addressed. . If you are not the intended recipient please delete this e-mail from your system and you are prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email and any files transmitted with it. Sender accepts no liability for the content of this email, or the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided without express written confirmation. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Employees of company are expressly required not to make defamatory statements and not to infringe or authorize any infringement of copyright or any other legal right by email communications. The company will not accept any liability in respect of such communication as the same is contrary to company policy, and outside the scope of the employment of the employee. WARNING: The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of computer viruses. The sender has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email and does not accept liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Oct 29 06:50:25 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:50:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> Message-ID: <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> A very nice proposal indeed. I have no doubt few governments will even vote for it! My prediction: 1. Most of the Internet will have never, ever heard of this great "save the Internet" human race goal, and for them, everything will continue as usual. 2. The Tier 1 "ISP" (*) or "DNS root" operator's mom will call their child and as "Why can't I read my daily gossip? Do something about it!". After which, these parts will again rejoin the Internet. 3. There will be a new article about the malicious terrorists that conspired to halt the Internet. 4. White bearded scientists will long argue on talk shows why the miscreants wanted the Internet top stop on exactly that date. 5. Next day will come. Daniel (*) I have been around long before this unfortunate "Internet Services Provider" term was invented. Whoever invented it, did a bad service to the community. For most people it has no meaning. But eventually everyone embraced it, which is yet another proof of how little people do care about those things. PS: Yes, I agree that such event would "solve" this India proposal. But nobody will agree to that, because by 2020 those who want it, won't be in office anymore. It has to happen before the next elections, in fact. On 28.10.14 21:39, Barry Shein wrote: > > Straw Man: > > The obvious solution to the IPv4 address distribution issues in > Proposal 98 is to have a "flag day" after which IPv4 will no longer be > used in the public internet. > > This would put everyone back on equal footing vis a vis address > distribution and resolve this issue. > > I realize there are issues involved such as backwards compatability > with older devices though V4/V6 gateways are well understood. > > Another issue is "by who's authority?!" > > But if for example the DNS root and Tier 1 etc (major connectivity > providers) went along that would be authority enough. The objective is > not to "outlaw" IPv4, just to make it exceedingly inconvenient for > general use after that date (e.g., no more DNS resolutions from the > root and others.) > > For discussion's sake I will propose 14 November 2020 00:00GMT which > happens to be Diwali 2020 and a Saturday so Sunday across the date > line. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Oct 29 07:06:32 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:06:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5450CA38.3080701@digsys.bg> On 29.10.14 06:41, parminder wrote: > Developing countries, including India, have for decades been crying > hoarse, pleading, 'please, become more fair and democratic...'. Such > appeals get the most humiliating responses - from a stony silence, to, > well, 'we made the Internet, and so have some regard and patience'. First, let me repeat, that the Internet is different. But if it was not, and the Internet was indeed the "natural resource (within their borders)" that most Governments imagine it is, here is a nice scenario: India to Kuwait: Folks, you sit on a huge amount of oil. You don't need that much 'please, become more fair and democratic...' ... and give some of it to us, for free. So that we can have a piece of that resource too. Kuwait to India: go away, it is ours. (eventually Kuwait gets invaded by a less polite, but better armed third party, that too, wants their deserved share of Kuwait's oil. India starts asking the same question the new governor... or not?) Back to Internet. The IPv4 allocation process is part of it's distributed trust architecture. The Internet is designed after human society communication model and it has no single point of failure. From this follows, it has no single point or chain of command. Internet is a very complex graph of relationships. Thing is, Internet was and is being built by everyone. Fortunately, that is *not* governments. So in essence, the Internet is being built by individuals (sometimes using their corporate heavy weight) from all around the world, including India. As with anything that is done by people, governments want their share. They want to control it, so that they get to decide who participates and who does not -- and execute various punishments, such as the "Three Strike" excommunication laws in some countries. They also want to tax it. Thing is, because *most* (or all) governments are not democratic, no matter what they claim, they do not know how to do it properly. This is why, every government out there wants total control over the whole thing. They will experiment with every possible venue, from the UN, ITU, GAC, puppet CS, science, tech etc representatives. This is going to ultimately fail, until a global government is formed, that might eventually seize control of the Internet. Many prophesy books claim this will happen, some day. But this day is not today. 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 pouzin at well.com Wed Oct 29 07:06:49 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:06:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: The India's proposals at PP, commented by Parminder, sounds like rational politics in the context of an hegemonic State representing its own lobbies/monopolies and a worldwide mass surveillance/spying organisation. Whether each State is more or less democratic is a diversion in the discussion, which pertains to independence and mutual trust. Of course impacts have to be analysed, but this is for each State to draw its conclusions. Louis - - - On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Richard Hill wrote: > I agree with Parminder's analysis. > > Best, > Richard > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 29 09:24:49 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:54:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <5450CA38.3080701@digsys.bg> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> <5450CA38.3080701@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <91F2A1CE-57CC-4C7D-9AA5-84C976D58D90@hserus.net> Ah. Puppet CS. An interesting notion, that. Along with that, +1 to all that you said. --srs (iPad) > On 29-Oct-2014, at 16:36, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > >> On 29.10.14 06:41, parminder wrote: >> Developing countries, including India, have for decades been crying >> hoarse, pleading, 'please, become more fair and democratic...'. Such >> appeals get the most humiliating responses - from a stony silence, to, >> well, 'we made the Internet, and so have some regard and patience'. > > First, let me repeat, that the Internet is different. > > But if it was not, and the Internet was indeed the "natural resource > (within their borders)" that most Governments imagine it is, here is a > nice scenario: > > India to Kuwait: Folks, you sit on a huge amount of oil. You don't need > that much 'please, become more fair and democratic...' ... and give some > of it to us, for free. So that we can have a piece of that resource too. > > Kuwait to India: go away, it is ours. > > (eventually Kuwait gets invaded by a less polite, but better armed third > party, that too, wants their deserved share of Kuwait's oil. India > starts asking the same question the new governor... or not?) > > Back to Internet. The IPv4 allocation process is part of it's > distributed trust architecture. The Internet is designed after human > society communication model and it has no single point of failure. From > this follows, it has no single point or chain of command. Internet is a > very complex graph of relationships. > > Thing is, Internet was and is being built by everyone. Fortunately, that > is *not* governments. So in essence, the Internet is being built by > individuals (sometimes using their corporate heavy weight) from all > around the world, including India. As with anything that is done by > people, governments want their share. They want to control it, so that > they get to decide who participates and who does not -- and execute > various punishments, such as the "Three Strike" excommunication laws in > some countries. They also want to tax it. > > Thing is, because *most* (or all) governments are not democratic, no > matter what they claim, they do not know how to do it properly. This is > why, every government out there wants total control over the whole > thing. They will experiment with every possible venue, from the UN, ITU, > GAC, puppet CS, science, tech etc representatives. > > This is going to ultimately fail, until a global government is formed, > that might eventually seize control of the Internet. Many prophesy books > claim this will happen, some day. But this day is not today. > > 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 drc at virtualized.org Wed Oct 29 10:43:15 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 07:43:15 -0700 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> Message-ID: Guru, On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Guru Acharya wrote: > Please do explain the scope of "(e) To consider broad Internet policy issues in order to ensure that APNIC's policies and strategies fully respond to the constantly changing Internet environment;" In my dictionary, "consider" means "think carefully about (something)". It does not equal "make" nor does it equal "represent ". The EC is responsible for the operation of APNIC. As such, it _must_ consider the environment in which it is operating. Through that consideration, it may encourage the membership and larger community to review changes in that environment and their implication on APNIC's policies, but the EC, itself, does not make policy. > Don't you think IANA Transition is one of these "broad internet policy issues" that is outside the scope of the Policy SIG and within the scope of the APNIC EC due to the scope of function (e)? In the sense that the transition might impact the environment in which APNIC operates, it is appropriate for the EC to consider the issue and raise the implications with the membership and the larger community. Are you saying APNIC hasn't engaged the membership/larger community on the transition? > I don't see the membership pushing the EC back to its constrained role. Maybe something failed somewhere in your design. While I've no doubt something in 'my' design (or, more accurately, the design that was the result of a consensus bottom up process of the AP-region Internet community over 20 years ago) has failed somewhere, this doesn't appear to be it. An alternative and more likely interpretation of the lack of push back is that the membership/larger community does not believe the EC has exceeded its constrained role. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Oct 29 14:22:25 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:22:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> , Message-ID: Sorry to intrude, but can someone explain how Alibaba's record $20 billion IPO and valuation predicted by Wall Street to trend towards $500 billion, dwarfing those of most of certain parties favorite US Internet business is evil targets, fits in this equation? http://www.businessinsider.com/analysts-on-alibaba-2014-10 My personal view: I suggest the unipolar/state-centric frame offered by some to consider who is winning from the present - distributed Internet architecture - doesn't match the market data.? Or at the least, it is short accounting for a few more hegemons who appear to doing quite well under the ancien regime, thank you. ; ). Lee ? ________________________________ From: pouzin at gmail.com on behalf of Louis Pouzin (well) Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:06 AM To: forum at justnetcoalition.org Cc: parminder; michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; rhill Subject: Re: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management The India's proposals at PP, commented by Parminder, sounds like rational politics in the context of an hegemonic State representing its own lobbies/monopolies and a worldwide mass surveillance/spying organisation. Whether each State is more or less democratic is a diversion in the discussion, which pertains to independence and mutual trust. Of course impacts have to be analysed, but this is for each State to draw its conclusions. Louis - - - On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Richard Hill > wrote: I agree with Parminder's analysis. Best, Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 29 17:14:19 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:14:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//blogs=2Else=2Eac=2Euk/mediapol?= =?US-ASCII?Q?icyproject/2014/10/29/is-there-any-internet-governance-out-t?= =?US-ASCII?Q?here/?= Message-ID: some interesting insights into our recent discussions -- 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 Oct 29 20:29:21 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:59:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Using 1950s rhetoric repurposed from ancient Grecian rhetoric does have its pitfalls when discussing a considerably younger set of systems. --srs (iPad) > On 29-Oct-2014, at 23:52, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Sorry to intrude, but can someone explain how Alibaba's record $20 billion IPO and valuation predicted by Wall Street to trend towards $500 billion, dwarfing those of most of certain parties favorite US Internet business is evil targets, fits in this equation? > > http://www.businessinsider.com/analysts-on-alibaba-2014-10 > > My personal view: I suggest the unipolar/state-centric frame offered by some to consider who is winning from the present - distributed Internet architecture - doesn't match the market data.​ > > > > Or at the least, it is short accounting for a few more hegemons who appear to doing quite well under the ancien regime, thank you. ; ). > > > Lee > > > ​ > > > From: pouzin at gmail.com on behalf of Louis Pouzin (well) > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:06 AM > To: forum at justnetcoalition.org > Cc: parminder; michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; rhill > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management > > The India's proposals at PP, commented by Parminder, sounds like rational politics in the context of an hegemonic State representing its own lobbies/monopolies and a worldwide mass surveillance/spying organisation. Whether each State is more or less democratic is a diversion in the discussion, which pertains to independence and mutual trust. Of course impacts have to be analysed, but this is for each State to draw its conclusions. > Louis > - - - > >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Richard Hill wrote: >> I agree with Parminder's analysis. >> >> Best, >> Richard > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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 sathish.s at basixindia.com Wed Oct 29 22:09:32 2014 From: sathish.s at basixindia.com (sathish) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 07:39:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: governance-unsubscribe@lists.igcaucus.org. References: <54509859.5050101@apc.org> <5450A75F.3060507@apc.org> Message-ID: <002501cff3e6$8d90f9f0$a8b2edd0$@s@basixindia.com> Please un subscribe me From: sathish [mailto:sathish.s at basixindia.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:36 PM To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Anriette Esterhuysen' Subject: governance-unsubscribe at lists.igcaucus.org. governance-unsubscribe at lists.igcaucus.org. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:08 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] APC assessment of the 2014 IGF 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 africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient(s) to whom they are addressed. . If you are not the intended recipient please delete this e-mail from your system and you are prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email and any files transmitted with it. Sender accepts no liability for the content of this email, or the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided without express written confirmation. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Employees of company are expressly required not to make defamatory statements and not to infringe or authorize any infringement of copyright or any other legal right by email communications. The company will not accept any liability in respect of such communication as the same is contrary to company policy, and outside the scope of the employment of the employee. WARNING: The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of computer viruses. The sender has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email and does not accept liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 30 13:54:55 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:54:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Applications extended and scholarships available: 2015 Master in Diplomacy with IG specialisation Message-ID: Hi everyone, I am passing this on because of new scholarship funding, and the extended deadline. Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested. Cheers, Ginger You may be interested to know that Diplo is still accepting applications for the *2015 Master's programme in Contemporary Diplomacy, with a specialisation in Internet governance*. This specialised programme, offered by DiploFoundation and the University of Malta, gives current and future Internet policymakers a solid foundation in diplomatic skills and techniques, necessary to engage effectively in international and global policy processes. Diplo is also offering *partial scholarships *(20 - 40% discount) available for applicants from developing countries, with priority given to small island developing states. The Master's programme includes a 10-day residential workshop in Malta followed by 16–20 months of online learning. The deadline to apply is *10 November 2014*. For more details and to apply, please visit http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD or contact admissions at diplomacy.edu. We would appreciate if you could forward this message to colleagues or friends whom you think may benefit from the programme. Thanks, Stephanie Is this email not displaying correctly? View this email in your browser Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with an Internet Governance Specialisation ------------------------------ *Accelerate your career with this online diplomacy programme, offered by DiploFoundation and the University of Malta.* ------------------------------ *NEWS:* - *Application deadlines extended*: 10 November (international applicants); 1 December (Maltese applicants). Apply now to reserve your place. - *Partial scholarships available* for applicants from developing countries, with priority to applicants from small island states. This unique programme gives current and future Internet policymakers a solid foundation in diplomatic skills and techniques necessary to engage effectively in international global policy processes. ’The IG route in the MA Contemporary Diplomacy Programme has enabled me to situate the focus of my work on Internet Governance in Africa in a space that is directly relevant to the mandate of the NEPAD Agency. I have found immense value in being able to bring together the two worlds of Internet Governance and Diplomacy.’ *Towela Nyirenda-Jere Programme Manager, e-Africa Programme, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency* How the programme works - First, you attend a 10-day residential workshop in Malta. Here you will get a clear overview of the programme, meet your classmates and some of the faculty members, and develop skills in critical areas of diplomacy including negotiation, protocol, and language. - Next, you participate in five online courses, each lasting ten weeks. You will attend three or four courses in IG-related topics and choose the remaining courses from our wide range of diplomacy topics . Online study involves reading and discussing lecture texts with course lecturers and fellow participants, completing learning activities and assignments, and joining online meetings. Once you have completed these courses, you are eligible to receive a Postgraduate Diploma in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. - If you continue to the Master's degree, the final part of the programme is writing your dissertation, focussed on an IG-related topic, under the personal guidance of a faculty member. On successful completion, you will receive a Master degree in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. - The IG courses you attended – as well as other courses – will be listed in a detailed transcript which you can order on completion of the programme to supplement your diploma or degree in Contemporary Diplomacy. *Faculty members* include practising and retired diplomats, academics, and specialists in IG with both theoretical expertise and practical experience in the field. *Online learning* takes place in small groups and is highly interactive, drawing on the experience and knowledge of participants as well as lecturers. Course work is flexible: within a weekly schedule, you decide when and where to study. The programme requires 7-10 hours of study per week. Interested in a traditional diplomacy programme? You can also register without the Internet governance (IG) specialisation - see the programme website for more details. The Master in Contemporary Diplomacy is recognised worldwide and has European postgraduate accreditation through the Faculty of Arts at the University of Malta. Graduates of Diplo's IG courses hold key positions in national and international bodies working in Internet Governance, including the Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group. *Who should apply* Diplomats, government officials, and other individuals interested in or responsible for IG, cybersecurity and other Internet-related policy issues; business and civil society activists involved in multistakeholder IG processes; postgraduate students, journalists, staff of international and non-governmental organisations wishing to take an active part in Internet policy-making. *How to apply* The next programme begins on 2 February 2015.* Apply by 10 November 2014 (international applicants); 1 December 2014 (Maltese applicants).* For further details and application instructions, please visit http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD or contact admissions at diplomacy.edu Like us on FaceBook Follow us on Twitter Our website Our network *Copyright © 2014 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* In case you're wondering... you are receiving this email because you're part of the DiploTeam family. Enjoy! ------------------------------ [ forward to a friend ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 30 16:19:45 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:19:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <5450C671.4080302@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> Message-ID: <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> Two points for the price of one: 1. Executive Summary (more details below): I proposed we have an internet flag day in (straw man) 2020 after which IPv4 will no longer be supported by core resources. Responding to Daniel Kalchev (text below): You are predicting a very government-centric resistance to this proposal. No doubt many governments will have a reaction but such a change is not particularly within governments' purview any more than introducing IPv6 was within their scope. Obviously their views must be considered, not my point, we are all voices in this wilderness. Also, I would agree that a key requirement would be a funded communications function so this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. One major concern I have is, for example, China will concur with India's view on IPv4 address allocations at which point nearly half the world's population is in protest (by some measure of representation.) Perhaps we can forestall any conflict. --- 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. So that snipe was a bit disingenuous unless it was meant to say this should be unwound. The run out of IPv4 addresses and the switch to IPv6 allocations is heralding a qualitative as much as a quantitative change. That is, why have regional allocations at all? Addresses too cheap to meter! Well, admittedly not really on the table but then again what is for certain? On October 29, 2014 at 12:50 daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) wrote: > A very nice proposal indeed. I have no doubt few governments will even > vote for it! > > My prediction: > > 1. Most of the Internet will have never, ever heard of this great "save > the Internet" human race goal, and for them, everything will continue as > usual. > > 2. The Tier 1 "ISP" (*) or "DNS root" operator's mom will call their > child and as "Why can't I read my daily gossip? Do something about it!". > After which, these parts will again rejoin the Internet. > > 3. There will be a new article about the malicious terrorists that > conspired to halt the Internet. > > 4. White bearded scientists will long argue on talk shows why the > miscreants wanted the Internet top stop on exactly that date. > > 5. Next day will come. > > Daniel > > (*) I have been around long before this unfortunate "Internet Services > Provider" term was invented. Whoever invented it, did a bad service to > the community. For most people it has no meaning. But eventually > everyone embraced it, which is yet another proof of how little people do > care about those things. > > PS: Yes, I agree that such event would "solve" this India proposal. But > nobody will agree to that, because by 2020 those who want it, won't be > in office anymore. It has to happen before the next elections, in fact. > > > On 28.10.14 21:39, Barry Shein wrote: > > > > Straw Man: > > > > The obvious solution to the IPv4 address distribution issues in > > Proposal 98 is to have a "flag day" after which IPv4 will no longer be > > used in the public internet. > > > > This would put everyone back on equal footing vis a vis address > > distribution and resolve this issue. > > > > I realize there are issues involved such as backwards compatability > > with older devices though V4/V6 gateways are well understood. > > > > Another issue is "by who's authority?!" > > > > But if for example the DNS root and Tier 1 etc (major connectivity > > providers) went along that would be authority enough. The objective is > > not to "outlaw" IPv4, just to make it exceedingly inconvenient for > > general use after that date (e.g., no more DNS resolutions from the > > root and others.) > > > > For discussion's sake I will propose 14 November 2020 00:00GMT which > > happens to be Diwali 2020 and a Saturday so Sunday across the date > > line. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 30 19:04:40 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:04:40 +1300 Subject: [governance] Any Corbos Experience [Help] Message-ID: Hi Guys, Does anyone have any experience in installing Corbos (ABI) and if you have, grateful if you could please contact me offline/offlist please. With every best wish, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 30 19:08:23 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:08:23 +1300 Subject: [governance] Cognos [Help] Message-ID: Sorry Guys, meant to say Cognos instead of Corbos. On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Does anyone have any experience in installing Corbos (ABI) and if you > have, grateful if you could please contact me offline/offlist please. > > With every best wish, > Sala > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From caribe at entropia.blog.br Thu Oct 30 21:01:21 2014 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Rebello_Carib=E9?=) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:01:21 -0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Schools and Fellowship In-Reply-To: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> References: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <74AEC9D4-2C29-4270-920D-F22D1A9B4D49@entropia.blog.br> Dears, I'm writing an article about how to enter the debate on Internet governance, and I want to relate the major scholarship programs and schools of Internet governance worldwide. So far I have: Pre IGF LACIGF (LAC) - CGI.Br (Integral) - Lacnic (Partial) //Other Regional IGF and they fellowship program LANIC / LACNOG (LAC) - Lacnic (Partial) IGF (Global) - CGI.Br (Integral) - ISOC (??) - APC (??) - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program - Youth IGF (Childnet) (Europe) - Youth Program ICANN (Global) - Fellowship Program (Integral) - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program Schools of Internet Governance - EGI - CGI.br - https://egi.nic.br/ - Brazil - Euro SSGI - http://www.euro-ssig.eu/ - Europe and the region - South School on Internet Governance - http://www.gobernanzainternet.org/en/ - African School on Internet Governance (APC) - http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/ I wanna to gatalog and share this informations, also from other regional IGFs,Internet Governance Schools and other open events on IG. The article will be published in Portuguese and English, under Creative Commons, anyone woul copy, share, adapt and translate. Any help will be very welcome. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Oct 30 21:37:27 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:07:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Schools and Fellowship In-Reply-To: <74AEC9D4-2C29-4270-920D-F22D1A9B4D49@entropia.blog.br> References: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> <74AEC9D4-2C29-4270-920D-F22D1A9B4D49@entropia.blog.br> Message-ID: <14963d99420.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Diplo also has several courses on Internet governance. On October 31, 2014 6:32:19 AM João Carlos Rebello Caribé wrote: > Dears, > > I'm writing an article about how to enter the debate on Internet > governance, and I want to relate the major scholarship programs and schools > of Internet governance worldwide. > > So far I have: > > Pre IGF > LACIGF (LAC) > - CGI.Br (Integral) > - Lacnic (Partial) > > //Other Regional IGF and they fellowship program > > LANIC / LACNOG (LAC) > - Lacnic (Partial) > > IGF (Global) > - CGI.Br (Integral) > - ISOC (??) > - APC (??) > - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program > - Youth IGF (Childnet) (Europe) - Youth Program > > ICANN (Global) > - Fellowship Program (Integral) > - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program > > > Schools of Internet Governance > - EGI - CGI.br - https://egi.nic.br/ - Brazil > - Euro SSGI - http://www.euro-ssig.eu/ - Europe and the region > - South School on Internet Governance - http://www.gobernanzainternet.org/en/ > - African School on Internet Governance (APC) - > http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/ > > I wanna to gatalog and share this informations, also from other regional > IGFs,Internet Governance Schools and other open events on IG. > > The article will be published in Portuguese and English, under Creative > Commons, anyone woul copy, share, adapt and translate. > > > Any help will be very welcome. > > -- > 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 ujwala.uppaluri at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 01:33:56 2014 From: ujwala.uppaluri at gmail.com (Ujwala Uppaluri) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:03:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 Message-ID: Dear All, CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here . Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. Best, Ujwala -- Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 31 02:01:39 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:31:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> Thanks Ujwala I think one of the important issue right now is possible addition of "unauthorised" to "counterfeit" devices (which is bad enough) in draft new resolution on counterfeit devices. It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate at the edges'. Hope this can be stopped somehow. On a different note, you have referred two commentaries on the India proposal. If you also link my email on the subject which is at http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2014-10/msg00229.html the commentaries would perhaps be more balanced.. Thanks for this excellent work and reference parminder On Friday 31 October 2014 11:03 AM, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | > Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org > .www.nludelhi.ac.in > | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 02:11:39 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 02:11:39 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> References: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree with Parminder on "It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate at the edges'. " I do see a trend to expand phone related regulation (as parminder also mentioned) to IP based communication hardware, and that can be a real problem for innovation On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:01 AM, parminder wrote: > Thanks Ujwala > > I think one of the important issue right now is possible addition of > "unauthorised" to "counterfeit" devices (which is bad enough) in draft new > resolution on counterfeit devices. > > It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every > single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be > "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a > pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications > etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate > at the edges'. > > Hope this can be stopped somehow. > > On a different note, you have referred two commentaries on the India > proposal. If you also link my email on the subject which is at > http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2014-10/msg00229.html the > commentaries would perhaps be more balanced.. > > Thanks for this excellent work and reference > parminder > > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 11:03 AM, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: > (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . > www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 31 03:28:30 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:28:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> Very helpful Ujwala. Parminder, where is the devices issue being discussed? Thanks Anriette On 31/10/2014 07:33, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | > Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org > . > www.nludelhi.ac.in > | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > -- ````````````````````````````````` 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 31 03:31:34 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:01:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> References: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> Message-ID: <54533AD6.30805@itforchange.net> On Friday 31 October 2014 12:58 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Very helpful Ujwala. Parminder, where is the devices issue being > discussed? Here at the ITU Plenipot, in the discussions on new resolution on counterfeit [unauthorised] devices, the resolution as per WCITleaks being (no, I did not give to you, wikileaks did :) ) http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-DL-0017!R2!MSW-E.pdf > > Thanks > > Anriette > > On 31/10/2014 07:33, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here >> . >> >> Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. >> >> Best, >> >> Ujwala >> >> -- >> Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow >> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi >> | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | >> Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org >> .www.nludelhi.ac.in | >> Twitter: @ccgdelhi > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > 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 dave at difference.com.au Fri Oct 31 05:20:54 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:20:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0F78A231-7EB1-49D7-BE93-195E49C2E24D@difference.com.au> On 22 Oct 2014, at 9:47 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > Further to Parminder’s comments below. > > I recently published a blogpost (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic model of “governance by and for the people” is in direct conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of “governance by and for stakeholders”. > > I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in such a way is highly simplistic It is always good when we can agree on something, Michael. Regards David -------------- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 31 05:45:04 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:15:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <54533AD6.30805@itforchange.net> References: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> <54533AD6.30805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54535A20.8000303@itforchange.net> The term "unauthorised devices" has been now dropped... On Friday 31 October 2014 01:01 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 31 October 2014 12:58 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Very helpful Ujwala. Parminder, where is the devices issue being >> discussed? > > Here at the ITU Plenipot, in the discussions on new resolution on > counterfeit [unauthorised] devices, the resolution as per WCITleaks > being (no, I did not give to you, wikileaks did :) ) > > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-DL-0017!R2!MSW-E.pdf > >> >> Thanks >> >> Anriette >> >> On 31/10/2014 07:33, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here >>> . >>> >>> Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Ujwala >>> >>> -- >>> Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow >>> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi >>> | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | >>> Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org >>> .www.nludelhi.ac.in >>> | Twitter: @ccgdelhi >>> >> >> -- >> ````````````````````````````````` >> 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Oct 31 05:48:28 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:18:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <54535A20.8000303@itforchange.net> References: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> <54533AD6.30805@itforchange.net> <54535A20.8000303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <453B4D10-90F1-4E41-8D68-E0402A99494E@hserus.net> For once, thank you for flagging this issue, and I too am glad it has been dropped. --srs (iPad) > On 31-Oct-2014, at 15:15, parminder wrote: > > > The term "unauthorised devices" has been now dropped... > > >> On Friday 31 October 2014 01:01 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> On Friday 31 October 2014 12:58 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> Very helpful Ujwala. Parminder, where is the devices issue being discussed? >> >> Here at the ITU Plenipot, in the discussions on new resolution on counterfeit [unauthorised] devices, the resolution as per WCITleaks being (no, I did not give to you, wikileaks did :) ) >> >> http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-DL-0017!R2!MSW-E.pdf >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>>> On 31/10/2014 07:33, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here. >>>> >>>> Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Ujwala >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow >>>> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi >>> >>> -- >>> ````````````````````````````````` >>> anriette esterhuysen >>> executive director >>> association for progressive communications >>> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa >>> anriette at apc.org >>> www.apc.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Oct 31 05:54:44 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:54:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <54535A20.8000303@itforchange.net> References: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> <54533AD6.30805@itforchange.net>,<54535A20.8000303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8A66@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> Hope this is relevant: Rights on Networks: Freedom to USE, CREATE and CONNECT: * Civil society and public administrations must have the right to provide and implement network services, including the right to offer their use to citizens gratis and without conditions. * Citizens must have the right to connect any hardware to the network (following the carterfone principle), and to use the network for any purpose (for instance, for voip), and connect any other network (e.g. tethering) to networks without restrictions. >From Barcelona FCF Charter: http://share.lqdn.fr/Books/FCF%20-%20The%20Charter%20for%20Innovation,%20Creativity,%20and%20Access%20to%20Knowledge.pdf //Erik ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday 31 October 2014 10:45 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 The term "unauthorised devices" has been now dropped... On Friday 31 October 2014 01:01 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 31 October 2014 12:58 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Very helpful Ujwala. Parminder, where is the devices issue being discussed? Here at the ITU Plenipot, in the discussions on new resolution on counterfeit [unauthorised] devices, the resolution as per WCITleaks being (no, I did not give to you, wikileaks did :) ) http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-DL-0017!R2!MSW-E.pdf Thanks Anriette On 31/10/2014 07:33, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: Dear All, CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here. Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. Best, Ujwala -- Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi -- ````````````````````````````````` 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 dave at difference.com.au Fri Oct 31 05:57:32 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:57:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> References: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree with Parminder. I would go further in that I'm not keen on this being applied to telephones either (which could arguably outlaw devices that can change IMEI. Very glad to hear the 'unauthorized' language has been dropped, but still find it quite problematic. And counterfeit is, as Parminder says, problematic enough. We've just seen a big issue in which a Windows Update was used to deliver an FTDI driver (a chip used in many simple USB peripherals) was delivered that 'bricked' counterfeit chips. While I wouldn't argue against use of IP law to stop counterfeiting (without wishing to dip into that complex issue), the idea that if a device is counterfeit is permissable to attempt to effectively destroy end users private property is outrageous. We need to stop that kind of thinking, that manufacturers intellectual property rights trump consumer rights and property rights. David On 31 Oct 2014, at 2:01 pm, parminder wrote: > Thanks Ujwala > > I think one of the important issue right now is possible addition of "unauthorised" to "counterfeit" devices (which is bad enough) in draft new resolution on counterfeit devices. > > It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate at the edges'. > > Hope this can be stopped somehow. > > On a different note, you have referred two commentaries on the India proposal. If you also link my email on the subject which is at http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2014-10/msg00229.html the commentaries would perhaps be more balanced.. > > Thanks for this excellent work and reference > parminder > > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 11:03 AM, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here. >> >> Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. >> >> Best, >> >> Ujwala >> >> -- >> Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow >> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 31 05:58:35 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:28:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8A66@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> References: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> <54533AD6.30805@itforchange.net>,<54535A20.8000303@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8A66@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <54535D4B.8050809@itforchange.net> On Friday 31 October 2014 03:24 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote: > Hope this is relevant: > > *Rights on Networks: Freedom to USE, CREATE and CONNECT: > * > > * Civil society and public administrations must have > the right to provide and implement network services, > including the right to offer their use to citizens gratis and > without conditions. > * Citizens must have the right to connect any > hardware to the network (following the carterfone > principle), and to use the network for any purpose (for instance, > for voip), and connect any other network (e.g. tethering) to > networks without restrictions. > Yes, very relevant... parminder > >From Barcelona FCF Charter: > http://share.lqdn.fr/Books/FCF%20-%20The%20Charter%20for%20Innovation,%20Creativity,%20and%20Access%20to%20Knowledge.pdf > > //Erik > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Friday 31 October 2014 10:45 > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 > > > The term "unauthorised devices" has been now dropped... > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 01:01 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Friday 31 October 2014 12:58 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> Very helpful Ujwala. Parminder, where is the devices issue being >>> discussed? >> >> Here at the ITU Plenipot, in the discussions on new resolution on >> counterfeit [unauthorised] devices, the resolution as per WCITleaks >> being (no, I did not give to you, wikileaks did :) ) >> >> http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-DL-0017!R2!MSW-E.pdf >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> On 31/10/2014 07:33, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here >>>> . >>>> >>>> Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Ujwala >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow >>>> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, >>>> Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) >>>> 986-661-9037 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org >>>> .www.nludelhi.ac.in >>>> | Twitter: @ccgdelhi >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ````````````````````````````````` >>> 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Oct 31 06:44:12 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:14:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> --- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 06:44:58 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:44:58 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: References: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:57 AM, David Cake wrote: > > While I wouldn't argue against use of IP law to stop counterfeiting > (without wishing to dip into that complex issue), the idea that if a device > is counterfeit is permissable to attempt to effectively destroy end users > private property is outrageous. We need to stop that kind of thinking, that > manufacturers intellectual property rights trump consumer rights and > property rights. > Yes, it is already problematic enough that some digital services still seem to be predicated on the presumption that the user will always live in the same place, making it excessively difficult for him or her to use the service while connecting from a place they are not known to usually live. So much for a global network! Mawaki > > David > > > > > On 31 Oct 2014, at 2:01 pm, parminder wrote: > > Thanks Ujwala > > I think one of the important issue right now is possible addition of > "unauthorised" to "counterfeit" devices (which is bad enough) in draft new > resolution on counterfeit devices. > > It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every > single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be > "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a > pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications > etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate > at the edges'. > > Hope this can be stopped somehow. > > On a different note, you have referred two commentaries on the India > proposal. If you also link my email on the subject which is at > http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2014-10/msg00229.html the > commentaries would perhaps be more balanced.. > > Thanks for this excellent work and reference > parminder > > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 11:03 AM, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: > (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . > www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 06:54:53 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:54:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 31 07:20:09 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:20:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Schools and Fellowship In-Reply-To: <14963d99420.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> <74AEC9D4-2C29-4270-920D-F22D1A9B4D49@entropia.blog.br> <14963d99420.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Thanks for the reminder about Diplo's courses, Suresh. Diplo offers different options for taking IG courses, with the advantages of online programmes in most cases: - MA in Contemporary Diplomacy, with a focus area in IG http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD - Introduction to IG (available for credit through the University of Malta, or as a Diplo certificate course) http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-foundation - Cybersecurity (available for credit through the University of Malta, or as a Diplo certificate course) http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-Adv-security - Privacy and data protection (available as a Diplo certificate course) http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-Adv-Privacy Diplo also offers customised training programmes. For example, right now two online programs in IG are ongoing: an online IGMENA course with Hivos (October - December) and eAfrica with NEPAD which is just ending (August - October). Please let me know if I can help in any way. Best, Ginger On 30 October 2014 20:37, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Diplo also has several courses on Internet governance. > > > > On October 31, 2014 6:32:19 AM João Carlos Rebello Caribé < > caribe at entropia.blog.br> wrote: > > Dears, >> >> I'm writing an article about how to enter the debate on Internet >> governance, and I want to relate the major scholarship programs and schools >> of Internet governance worldwide. >> >> So far I have: >> >> Pre IGF >> LACIGF (LAC) >> - CGI.Br (Integral) >> - Lacnic (Partial) >> >> //Other Regional IGF and they fellowship program >> >> LANIC / LACNOG (LAC) >> - Lacnic (Partial) >> >> IGF (Global) >> - CGI.Br (Integral) >> - ISOC (??) >> - APC (??) >> - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program >> - Youth IGF (Childnet) (Europe) - Youth Program >> >> ICANN (Global) >> - Fellowship Program (Integral) >> - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program >> >> >> Schools of Internet Governance >> - EGI - CGI.br - https://egi.nic.br/ - Brazil >> - Euro SSGI - http://www.euro-ssig.eu/ - Europe and the region >> - South School on Internet Governance - http://www.gobernanzainternet. >> org/en/ >> - African School on Internet Governance (APC) - http://african-ig-school. >> events.apc.org/ >> >> I wanna to gatalog and share this informations, also from other regional >> IGFs,Internet Governance Schools and other open events on IG. >> >> The article will be published in Portuguese and English, under Creative >> Commons, anyone woul copy, share, adapt and translate. >> >> >> Any help will be very welcome. >> >> -- >> 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 31 07:26:08 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:26:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <96B7E1F9-6508-4870-B194-83D18C36C301@glocom.ac.jp> Started hearing about the meeting mid-October (I am not invited :-)) Adam On Oct 31, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 31 07:34:54 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:04:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: <96B7E1F9-6508-4870-B194-83D18C36C301@glocom.ac.jp> References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <96B7E1F9-6508-4870-B194-83D18C36C301@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <14965fc8b90.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> The internet society of china (part industry self regulator, part industry lobby group etc etc) usually hosts their annual conference around this time. Is this the same one we are talking about? On October 31, 2014 4:56:14 PM Adam wrote: > Started hearing about the meeting mid-October (I am not invited :-)) > > Adam > > > > On Oct 31, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 31 07:41:05 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:41:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: <14965fc8b90.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <96B7E1F9-6508-4870-B194-83D18C36C301@glocom.ac.jp> <14965fc8b90.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <54537551.6000106@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 There was a banner about it at one of the booths in ICANN LA. http://en.ce.cn/main/latest/201410/31/t20141031_3815407.shtml "Attendees of the conference will include Alibaba chairman Jack Ma, Tencent founder and chairman Pony Ma, Chinese search engine Baidu CEO Li Yanhong, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) CEO Fadi Chehade and representatives from Qualcomm, Microsoft and Sumsung." P.S- Here is the website's conference: www.wicwuzhen.cn/description.aspx Best, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito www.about.me/ekenyanito On 31/10/14 14:34, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > The internet society of china (part industry self regulator, part > industry lobby group etc etc) usually hosts their annual > conference around this time. Is this the same one we are talking > about? > > > > On October 31, 2014 4:56:14 PM Adam wrote: > >> Started hearing about the meeting mid-October (I am not invited >> :-)) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Oct 31, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >>> 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 >> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUU3VRAAoJEAz+0m3muo3BmkYP/1AcdFwVWmb4aTHXR7H3i0Na Er3bJ/Z6dK5A5iCE6nPMyo4cGE0n7AlHkCc7xZDmzaerJf5B8tGltxgR3klDgoZe 4/VD4neCFStkZZNdvuemOlAEDafcxxZZGbGXukDFakK1+D4AcH/qX7M5yi5VMOiG NZ1Ffeef+MY8p0rv31JNxjn6WNdle7kqBTwHyM6Pc/fCPhUYtj1jGqbNWhnfues6 Mx52oViCduZFRqy2umESXiVCmYsHMbAkT/hJsEycrV1Ov3LqU7OfT0vPbH5SX+KC rjZVNXIsBYT3GtUfRauQ1Rgsk0N5KzAC3GR+IsyQcDcpJ30vmtxj2kbMYYZ4Jl5q 8zdxlMhV90l2+QOgJctv17G9p2z3ISUVb+AaIVuaJk3DkgA7PeI+V3IR3biEv8qe t7kYd7aXvhkGqwO4+tZVpnkRpSJYgtGaI/kdlwnwx/boU6PZErLklRtdzMGHkrJf wfElrc79wtSoazYqm2ogiW3vwM3WJXfhCtO+phR5ETAEBX+y+D7jM3J0IfBX2Rkt WzA94bqMGnBQhfTNRwCJrCfMbpnFq9064zPJzhlhDj9pmoeVlszcakU6G516Qwgq ZxNP8jWSxVRL+KofTuUkZNXP2mW1bacv9pyulE+ORJ06yxHOO4or1Ns5eFkkHB/t bxglQMXjYFdKzxxO5vVf =X5pX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chlebrum at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 08:01:21 2014 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (Chantal Lebrument) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:01:21 +0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <0705D9A0-56EA-499A-9406-9C2754BD7349@gmail.com> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 31 08:13:20 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:43:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: <0705D9A0-56EA-499A-9406-9C2754BD7349@gmail.com> References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <0705D9A0-56EA-499A-9406-9C2754BD7349@gmail.com> Message-ID: <149661fabc0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 31 08:47:12 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:47:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-posting by adding the IGC) "This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :)" Following from Anriette I would suggest again that these discussions might make a lot more progress towards consensus if we didn't use "the MS term" either. It is obviously possible to do without it. Deirdre On 31 October 2014 03:41, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I am only reading this now. > > It is excellent.. thanks so much for posting Gabrielle. > > This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of > the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through > multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :) > > Civil society activists in the internet space so much opportunity for > productive debate and development of positions because of the polarisation > between pro-multistakeholder and pro-multilateral factions when it is clear > that current approaches in the multilateral system are failing civil > society and failing to support any meaningful reform. > > Quoting Maina: "I am convinced that the traditional approach to > multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people > are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that > multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute > development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape > international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence > these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over." > > By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are failing > to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming international > internet-related governance. > > Anriette > > > > On 31/10/2014 04:34, joy wrote: > > Hi Gabrielle - I meant to say, thanks for sharing this - it's a compelling > report and useful for our work. > Kind regards > > Joy > On 25/10/2014 12:27 a.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: > > Hi all, > > I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association. > > I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/ > > Best, > > Gabrielle > > > Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.” > > The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people. > > A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post . Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum a “ceremonial event”. > > It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states. > > On October 28, I will present a report to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input. > > To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy. > > I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over. > > As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say. > > First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception ). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement. > > Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily. > > The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network , has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India. > > Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli , a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care. > > Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved. > > Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened. > > There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies at their events altogether. > > No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf. > > It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either. > > The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings. > > When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states. > > Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses. > > Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR on Twitter. > > > > ________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57 > To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > 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 and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participator > y. … > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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: > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Oct 31 11:22:50 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:22:50 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <96B7E1F9-6508-4870-B194-83D18C36C301@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016427D6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> The conference was advertised in the recent ICANN Meeting in LA. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Gesendet: Fr 31.10.2014 12:26 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mawaki Chango Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn Started hearing about the meeting mid-October (I am not invited :-)) Adam On Oct 31, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Fri Oct 31 11:52:58 2014 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:52:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <6F55BFC9-72BE-4C58-BBBD-81889FB5F2DA@privaterra.org> They had a booth at the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles last month. They had a nice poster (which I took a photo of) and materials about the event. I didn’t pick up copies. Did anyone else? https://twitter.com/netfreedom/status/521447162693947392 regards Robert > On Oct 31, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 31 12:34:42 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:34:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: <0705D9A0-56EA-499A-9406-9C2754BD7349@gmail.com> References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <0705D9A0-56EA-499A-9406-9C2754BD7349@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20141031173442.139e7932@quill> On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:01:21 +0800 Chantal Lebrument wrote: > But, regarding this China event it seems to be a... China event between > ICANN and US operators and chinese regulators... So when the Chinese want to talk with US folks, they call that a “world” conference. That's like the rest of the world isn't relevant to them. Oh well, maybe that's simply the truth, and the rest of the world simply isn't relevant to China as far as the Internet is concerned. Something for all of us who are neither Chinese nor US-American to ponder and maybe do something about. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Fri Oct 31 13:01:34 2014 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:01:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] [CFP] 11th Intl. Conf. on Open Source Systems (OSS2015) Message-ID: <01ca01cff52c$5349def0$f9dd9cd0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] **************************************************************************** *************** 11th Intl. Conf. on Open Source Systems (OSS2015) co-located with the 2015 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE2015) Florence, Italy – 16-17 May 2015 http://www.oss2015.org **************************************************************************** *************** *** Theme: Open Frameworks: from Service to Cloud *** Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has had a disruptive effect on the commercial software industry and the ways that organizations and individuals create, distribute, acquire and use software and software-based services. In addition to the many standalone FOSS projects, FOSS is at the heart of modern network-based computing infrastructures and can be found in the vast majority of applications that run in these environments. Many organizations that have been known for developing proprietary software are now actively involved with FOSS. FOSS adoption continues to grow among businesses, governments, and other organizations. FOSS remains important for educators and researchers, as well as an important aspect of e-government and information society initiatives, providing access to high-quality software and the code used to create it. Also, FOSS has taken the lead in a number of crucial ICT domains, like Cloud Computing, where open source cloud stacks are widely adopted, and Big Data, where a wealth of FOSS solutions is now being built around Hadoop. The 11th International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS 2015) will celebrate a decade of advances in the use of free and open source software by emphasizing areas and topics that will drive future use over the next decade. This will be achieved through a combination of high-quality research papers, tutorials, workshops, demonstrations, and invited talks. OSS2015 will be co-located with the 2015 International Conference on Software Engineering as a way to cross-fertilize ideas. The theme for the 2015 edition will be "Open frameworks: from service to cloud", putting forward the idea on how open source framework can develop the transition from traditional IT services to cloud-based architectures. A central goal of OSS 2015 is to provide an international forum where a diverse community of professionals from academia, industry, the public sector, and diverse FOSS initiatives can come together to share research findings and practical experiences. The conference also aims to serve as a meeting place where people can identify new research ideas and techniques for putting FOSS into widespread use. OSS 2015 will include research papers, industry papers, formal tool demonstrations, lightning talks, new ideas, experience reports, and posters. OSS 2015 also invites proposals for tutorials and workshops, submissions to the doctoral symposium, and submissions of panel proposals. Accepted papers will be included in the conference proceedings, which are published by Springer. ** Topics We are seeking submissions across a broad range of topics, but are particularly interested in those areas most likely to have an impact on computing over the next decade, including computing infrastructure, data management, and the Internet of Things. For practical experiences, we are seeking submissions that describe FOSS applications in embedded systems (IoT), health care, transportation, communications, and energy management. Other topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: - FOSS technologies - FOSS in the cloud - FOSS for data management and analysis - Security of FOSS - Interoperability, portability, scalability of FOSS - Open standards, open data, open cloud, open hardware and open exhibits - FOSS in cloud-based applications - Architecture and design of FOSS - Mobile and Embedded FOSS - Mobile Operating Systems - Open Source apps for mobile devices - Open Source app markets and software delivery platforms - Software metrics for Open Source mobile software - Energy efficiency in Mobile FOSS - FOSS Quality - Static and Dynamic FOSS testing - Formal FOSS verification - Detection of bad coding practices and adoption of coding conventions - OSS metrics: measuring FOSS performance, safety, and quality - FOSS performance - FOSS Evaluation, adoption and use - Evaluation of FOSS software, including comparisons with proprietary software, in industry and government - Use and acceptance of FOSS; organizational policies - The role of FOSS-oriented foundations - Dissemination, redistribution and crowdsourcing of FOSS systems - Expanding scientific research and technology development methods through openness - Role of FOSS in ICT and sustainable development -FOSS practices and methods - New experiences with FOSS development tools and practices - Knowledge and documentation management in FOSS - Economic, organizational and social issues related to FOSS - Economic analysis of FOSS - Maturity models of FOSS - FOSS in public sector - FOSS intellectual property, copyrights and licensing - Non-Governmental Organizations and FOSS - FOSS and education - Teaching FOSS to people of all ages and backgrounds - Use of FOSS in education -FOSS platforms and toolkits - FOSS Data processing and storage platforms - FOSS environments for cloud computing - FOSS business intelligence toolkits - FOSS business packages (CRM, ERP, HRM) - FOSS collaboration and communication environments ** Important Dates - Paper Submission due: January 10, 2015 - Notification to Authors: February 14, 2015 - Camera ready due: February 28, 2015 ** Authors Instructions Papers submitted to OSS 2015 must not have been published elsewhere and must not be under review or submitted for review elsewhere while under consideration for OSS 2015. All papers must conform, at time of submission, to the Springer Formatting Guidelines (LNCS) (http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-6-793341-0). You may utilize the templates provided in our website. Submissions must be in PDF format with a limit of 10 pages for each paper. All submissions will be peer-reviewed double blinded, therefore please remove any information that could give an indication of the authorship or affiliations. Authors of accepted papers will be therefore be required to sign a copyright transfer (as well as register for and attend the conference). When your paper is finished, submit it using EasyChair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=oss2015) according to the submission deadlines. ** Organizing Committee * General Chair - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Program Chairs - Dirk Riehle, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany - Tony Wasserman, Carnegie Mellon University, USA * Regional Publicity Chairs - Moataz Ahmed, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Saudi Arabia - Karl Reed, La Trobe University, Australia - Francesco Zavatarelli, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Organizing Chairs - Fulvio Frati, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Nadia Fusar Poli, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Web Chair - Fulvio Frati, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Program Committee - Chintan Amrit, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Luciano Baresi, DEIB – Politecnico di Milano, Italy - Paolo Ciancarini, University of Bologna, Italy - Francesco Di Cerbo, SAP Research Sophia-Antipolis, France - Jonas Gamalielsson, University of Skovde, Sweden - Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain - Imed Hammouda, Chalmers and University of Gothenburg, Sweden - Abram Hindle, University of Alberta, Canada - Netta Iivari, University of Oulu, Finland - Stefan Koch, Bogazici University, Turkey - Fabio Kon, University of São Paulo, Brasil - Luigi Lavazza, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Italy - Eda Marchetti, ISTI-CNR, Italy - Audris Mockus, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA - Sandro Morasca, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Italy - John Noll, Lero – the Irish Software Engineering Research Centre, Ireland - Mauro Pezzè, University of Lugano, Switzerland - Stephane Ribas, INRIA, France - Gregorio Robles, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Italy - Steve Schmid, Open Technology Foundation, Australia - Alberto Sillitti, Free University of Bozen/Bolzano, Italy - Diomidis Spinellis, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece - Megan Squire, Elon University, USA - Klaas-Jan Stol, Lero – University of Limerick, Ireland - Giancarlo Succi, Free University of Bozen/Bolzano, Italy - Davide Tosi, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Italy - Aaron Visaggio, University of Sannio, Italy - Stefano Zacchiroli, Université de Paris Diderot, France -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Oct 31 13:56:15 2014 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:26:15 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> References: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks very much for this Parminder. We will make sure to update the commentary by Monday evening. I am adding the other CCG fellow, Arun, working (along with Ujwala) on our Internet Governance project to this thread so that he can also see your email and discuss these issues with you in person if necessary at the Plenipot. Best, 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 On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:31 AM, parminder wrote: > Thanks Ujwala > > I think one of the important issue right now is possible addition of > "unauthorised" to "counterfeit" devices (which is bad enough) in draft new > resolution on counterfeit devices. > > It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every > single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be > "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a > pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications > etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate > at the edges'. > > Hope this can be stopped somehow. > > On a different note, you have referred two commentaries on the India > proposal. If you also link my email on the subject which is at > http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2014-10/msg00229.html the > commentaries would perhaps be more balanced.. > > Thanks for this excellent work and reference > parminder > > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 11:03 AM, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: > (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . > www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 14:00:41 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:00:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Hungarian Internet taxation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29846285 Tax idea scrapped after mass protests...this is true "bottom up" policy making! On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > The only thought that comes to me is that the Tax Regime in Hungary must be > really desperate for revenue. > > This might be a great time to showcase how taxing access can be an > impediment and restriction to growth of local content, innovation etc. #sigh > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/24/hundreds_of_hungarians_to_take_to_the_streets_in_protest_at_internet_tax/ >> >> similar story en francais: >> >> >> http://www.20minutes.fr/high-tech/1466387-20141022-hongrie-propose-taxer-trafic-internet >> >> -- >> 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 >> > -- 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 daniel at digsys.bg Fri Oct 31 14:24:29 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:24:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21586.40289.268447.626242@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> Message-ID: <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> > 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 14:26:04 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:26:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Hungarian Internet taxation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A really good news for today. Democracy is still a story with ballots and votes, sometime streets. When a government has some hearing difficulties the ballots make it to the streets. Still I would not see any "policy making" here: many people oppose a stupid project to help finance increase in military spendings, a Russian nuclear plant in Hungary, and keep reducing by the same token freedom of expression.. A simple and clear "droit de veto". When vote is not enough it might twist to veto! Too bad we often underestimate the power of vote and veto. They belong to Democracy. Encouraging the people to take into their hands their own voice and make it heard from their duly elected representative and governing authorities is their ultimate right. The stronger contract ever invented is still the democratic one. It doesn't equate to the street making law. Should the next step for the Hungarian democracy simply be that for their next elections, the voters come to switch to another representatives, able to choose for a more sounded leadership. Didn't they vote for that Orban? Democracy is mostly about that: accountability and ability to change the driver if his drive is getting hectic. It is a huge power over politics. That being said, it should be seen how the Internet can provide part of fiscal support to help and support national and transnational public policy making when it comes to global interconnected telecommunications (Internet). The end users are for most of them already paying VAT for accessing the Internet. Maybe the big players and profit makers should be talked to for the sake of social and economical justice worldwide. ;-) Sorry for I couldn't help to add this. Still totally in agreement with me dear Hungarian fellow European neighbors. JC Le 31 oct. 2014 à 19:00, McTim a écrit : > http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29846285 > > Tax idea scrapped after mass protests...this is true "bottom up" policy making! > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> The only thought that comes to me is that the Tax Regime in Hungary must be >> really desperate for revenue. >> >> This might be a great time to showcase how taxing access can be an >> impediment and restriction to growth of local content, innovation etc. #sigh >> >> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/24/hundreds_of_hungarians_to_take_to_the_streets_in_protest_at_internet_tax/ >>> >>> similar story en francais: >>> >>> >>> http://www.20minutes.fr/high-tech/1466387-20141022-hongrie-propose-taxer-trafic-internet >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 14:31:49 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 07:31:49 +1300 Subject: [governance] Hungarian Internet taxation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fantastic win by the Hungarians On 1 Nov 2014 06:26, "Jean-Christophe Nothias" < jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote: > A really good news for today. > > Democracy is still a story with ballots and votes, sometime streets. When > a government has some hearing difficulties the ballots make it to the > streets. Still I would not see any "policy making" here: many people oppose > a stupid project to help finance increase in military spendings, a Russian > nuclear plant in Hungary, and keep reducing by the same token freedom of > expression.. A simple and clear "droit de veto". When vote is not enough it > might twist to veto! Too bad we often underestimate the power of vote and > veto. They belong to Democracy. Encouraging the people to take into their > hands their own voice and make it heard from their duly elected > representative and governing authorities is their ultimate right. The > stronger contract ever invented is still the democratic one. It doesn't > equate to the street making law. > > Should the next step for the Hungarian democracy simply be that for their > next elections, the voters come to switch to another representatives, able > to choose for a more sounded leadership. Didn't they vote for that Orban? > Democracy is mostly about that: accountability and ability to change the > driver if his drive is getting hectic. It is a huge power over politics. > > That being said, it should be seen how the Internet can provide part of > fiscal support to help and support national and transnational public > policy making when it comes to global interconnected telecommunications > (Internet). The end users are for most of them already paying VAT for > accessing the Internet. Maybe the big players and profit makers should be > talked to for the sake of social and economical justice worldwide. ;-) > Sorry for I couldn't help to add this. Still totally in agreement with me > dear Hungarian fellow European neighbors. > > JC > > > Le 31 oct. 2014 à 19:00, McTim a écrit : > > > http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29846285 > > > > Tax idea scrapped after mass protests...this is true "bottom up" policy > making! > > > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > >> The only thought that comes to me is that the Tax Regime in Hungary > must be > >> really desperate for revenue. > >> > >> This might be a great time to showcase how taxing access can be an > >> impediment and restriction to growth of local content, innovation etc. > #sigh > >> > >> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM, McTim wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/24/hundreds_of_hungarians_to_take_to_the_streets_in_protest_at_internet_tax/ > >>> > >>> similar story en francais: > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://www.20minutes.fr/high-tech/1466387-20141022-hongrie-propose-taxer-trafic-internet > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Oct 31 17:56:50 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 08:56:50 +1100 Subject: [governance] Right to be forgotten Message-ID: Putting aside the jurisdictional issue here – isn’t this carrying a right to be forgotten too far? Pianist asks The Washington Post to remove a concert review under the E.U.’s ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/31/pianist-asks-the-washington-post-to-remove-a-concert-review-under-the-e-u-s-right-to-be-forgotten-ruling/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t