From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Apr  1 05:49:07 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:19:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>	<618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for 
> the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For 
> those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a 
> proposal!

Hi Anja

I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should 
present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder 
perspective".

For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled 
'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one 
would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in this 
area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test of 
'incorporating a MS perspective'.

Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop on 
Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF, the 
initial proposal is here 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals> 
... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be 
'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you or 
someone else from APrIGF can tell me..

Best , parminder
>
> With best regards,
> Anja
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *APrIGF Secretariat* <sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
> Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
> Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 
> 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
> To: announce at aprigf.asia <mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>
>
>
>
> *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum*
> *APrIGF Macao 2015*
> *30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015*
> *Sands Cotai Central, Macao*
> http://2015.rigf.asia <http://aprigf.asia/>
>
> *Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals*
>
> With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just 
> concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the 
> overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop 
> proposals and their request for a further deadline extension. 
> To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more 
> stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further 
> extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for community 
> members to fully develop their workshop proposals.
>
> We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions 
> which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, 
> incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of 
> stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall 
> promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.
>
> There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly 
> encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the 
> extended period.
>
> *Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: *11 Mar 2015 (Wed) *[Extended 
> to 7 Apr (Tue)]*
>
> *Online Submission 
> Form:* (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)
>
> If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat 
> at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.
>
> *
> If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and 
> discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list 
> discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in 
> subscription request.
>
> We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. 
> Please contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for more 
> information.
> *
>
> Best Regards,
> Secretariat of APrIGF
> http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.dot.asia/>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_discuss mailing list
> Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org <mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150401/05807fe9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  1 05:52:45 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:22:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: New Blogpost: Is There a Global Internet
 Community
In-Reply-To: <004c01d06bfd$2f7b44d0$8e71ce70$@gmail.com>
References: <004301d06bfc$2ac81270$80583750$@gmail.com> <004c01d06bfd$2f7b44d0$8e71ce70$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <551BBFED.6010003@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 01 April 2015 03:23 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> Some may find this of interest…
>
> https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/is-there-a-global-internet-community/
>

To contextualise Michael's what was much needed exposition to a very 
specific issue, one of the hottest IG issues, pl see the update document 
on IANA stewardship transition

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-discussion-31mar15-en.pdf 


The term 'community' is freely bandied around as if everyone knows what 
it means, and mind it, this is an authoritative discussion about a new 
institutional mechanism where one needs to know what a term means. Btw, 
they have recruited legal advisers (one need not even check to know that 
they must be US firms but not to digress...) to ensure that whatever 
they come up with is is legally sound, which includes having a clear 
legal meaning. So friends, who are involved in, or are otherwise close, 
to IANA transition process, what does the term 'community' mean in this 
document - is it the larger public affected by the Internet or is it the 
set of people who have traditionally been engaging with ICANN and its 
associated organisations, and are part of its committees, outreach 
systems and so on. Accordingly, I will like to know whether it is the 
larger public accountability of ICANN that is being addressed by the 
concerned group, or its accountability to a narrowly defined group, 
which too please do define for me.

For instance, one cannot make sense of such important and fundamental 
propositions like the below, without knowing what or who is the 
'community' .

(quote from the cited doc begins)

The group discussed  new mechanisms to empower the community  in ICANN’s 
decision-making processes. In particular, there was general convergence 
on the need to enable the community to :

# Recall (or “spill”) ICANN’s Board of Directors
# Approve or prevent changes to ICANN’s Bylaws, Mission and Core Values
# Reject Board decisions on ICANN’s Strategic Plan and budget (where the 
Board has failed to appropriately consider community input)

## It was recognized that, while it was clearly important that the ICANN 
Board be accountable to the community, it was also essential for the 
community itself to meet high standards of accountability.

(ends)

Community is spoken of as something which can be ascribed clear agency, 
and thus must be clearly definable. Please do define it for us to enable 
us to make any sense of what this group is proposing on an issue which 
is so important for the global public.


In a doc referenced in the above doc, which is titled "Accountability 
mechanism" and can be found here 
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/IRP%20Accountability%20Mechanism%20Template%20.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426866536000&api=v2 


and I quote from it (this is about possible ways to compose the 
Independent Review Board)

(begins)
Members to be nominated by the Board in consultation with the 
appointment by CEO, approved [how?] by community; [possible 
alternativeswhom? involving a reversal of the above (i.e. community 
nomination andBoard approval)] [Also consider external vetting or rating 
schemes fornominees, i.e., third party organization such as ICDR could 
appoint/nominate subject to confirmation.]

(ends)

We can make no sense of all this without clearly knowing what or who is 
the 'community' here. Please help.

Thanks, parminder

> *//*
>
> */M/*
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150401/3a3bbb65/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Wed Apr  1 06:44:56 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:44:56 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
 <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
 <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>

Hi Parminder.

I went to the IGF page and searched for your proposal. I’m surprised that the entire group of organisers consists of civil society players only.

The online proposal form has a button that allows one to ask for help if one has difficulty getting stakeholder participation. Your proposal does not have that request. I presume it means that you are not seeking inputs from government or the private sector.

Back in 2010, when we organised the first APrIGF, you and I had a couple of side chats during the meeting in HK and you gave some critical inputs that, in the long run, strengthened the meeting. One of the criticisms was that we had no government representation on the MSG (multistakeholder steering group; acronym cunningly chosen because it resembles flavouring originating in Asia). There was a bit of finger wagging by you even then and I explained to you that we had tried but no government was stepping up. Since then, we have seen increasing government involvement with the APrIGF. Fast forward to 2014 and the Indian government played a major part in the APrIGF in Delhi. I don’t know if you played a part in that but your critique in 2010 was helpful in prodding us to get government on board. In the coming Macao meeting, they are involved in sponsorships as well.

So now, seeing a proposal from you where only civil society is speaker and audience is puzzling. I have battle scars from being ejected at meetings by government officials between the two WSISs. They are so rare these days I wear them as a badge of honour.

So these are my questions that come top of my head.

  1.  If civil society can organise a session where no government or business organisation is invited, would it be acceptable if governments and business organise their own meetings among themselves?
  2.  If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the importance of a multistakeholder model http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:49 pm
To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals


On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Dear all,

I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a proposal!

Hi Anja

I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective".

For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled 'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in this area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test of 'incorporating a MS perspective'.

Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop on Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF, the initial proposal is here<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals> ... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be 'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you or someone else from APrIGF can tell me..

Best , parminder

With best regards,
Anja


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: APrIGF Secretariat <sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
To: announce at aprigf.asia<mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>



Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
APrIGF Macao 2015
30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015
Sands Cotai Central, Macao
http://2015.rigf.asia<http://aprigf.asia/>

Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals

With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop proposals and their request for a further deadline extension. To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for community members to fully develop their workshop proposals.

We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.

There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the extended period.

Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 11 Mar 2015 (Wed) [Extended to 7 Apr (Tue)]

Online Submission Form: (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)

If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.

If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia<mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in subscription request.

We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for more information.

Best Regards,
Secretariat of APrIGF
http://www.aprigf.asia<http://www.dot.asia/>
_______________________________________________




_______________________________________________
Rigf_discuss mailing list
Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org<mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss




--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150401/b8e2dff5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  1 06:54:36 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 12:54:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] FW: New Blogpost: Is There a Global
 Internet Community
In-Reply-To: <551BBFED.6010003@itforchange.net>
References: <004301d06bfc$2ac81270$80583750$@gmail.com> <004c01d06bfd$2f7b44d0$8e71ce70$@gmail.com>
 <551BBFED.6010003@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYrkfL=vDtOezCpc+1GoF=FnTjf-phDm+0f3fLD5tEandA@mail.gmail.com>

Community without a qualifier, is just buzzword.
Here are Merriam-Webster definitions:


COMMUNITY

: a group of people who live in the same area (such as a city, town, or
neighborhood)

: a group of people who have the same interests, religion, race, etc.

: a group of nations


It could be a few, or zillions, of anything. Let's compare with ...


GANG

: a group of criminals

: a group of young people who do illegal things together and who often
fight against other gangs

: a group of people who are friends and who do things together


Those definitions are at least much more meaningful.

Anyway, fuzzy expressions are worthless in legal documents.
  .
Louis.
- - -

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:52 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday 01 April 2015 03:23 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>  Some may find this of interest...
>
>
>
>
> https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/is-there-a-global-internet-community/
>
>
> To contextualise Michael's what was much needed exposition to a very
> specific issue, one of the hottest IG issues, pl see the update document on
> IANA stewardship transition
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-discussion-31mar15-en.pdf
>
> The term 'community' is freely bandied around as if everyone knows what it
> means, and mind it, this is an authoritative discussion about a new
> institutional mechanism where one needs to know what a term means. Btw,
> they have recruited legal advisers (one need not even check to know that
> they must be US firms but not to digress...) to ensure that whatever they
> come up with is is legally sound, which includes having a clear legal
> meaning. So friends, who are involved in, or are otherwise close, to IANA
> transition process, what does the term 'community' mean in this document -
> is it the larger public affected by the Internet or is it the set of people
> who have traditionally been engaging with ICANN and its associated
> organisations, and are part of its committees, outreach systems and so on.
> Accordingly, I will like to know whether it is the larger public
> accountability of ICANN that is being addressed by the concerned group, or
> its accountability to a narrowly defined group, which too please do define
> for me.
>
> For instance, one cannot make sense of such important and fundamental
> propositions like the below, without knowing what or who is the 'community'
> .
>
> (quote from the cited doc begins)
>
> The group discussed  new mechanisms to empower the community  in  ICANN's
> decision-making processes. In particular, there was general convergence on
> the need to enable the community to :
>
> # Recall (or "spill") ICANN's Board of Directors
> # Approve or prevent changes to ICANN's Bylaws, Mission and Core Values
> # Reject Board decisions on ICANN's Strategic Plan and budget (where the
> Board has failed to appropriately consider community input)
>
> ## It was recognized that, while it was clearly important that the ICANN
> Board be accountable to the community, it was also essential for the
> community itself to meet high standards of accountability.
>
> (ends)
>
> Community is spoken of as something which can be ascribed clear agency,
> and thus must be clearly definable. Please do define it for us to enable us
> to make any sense of what this group is proposing on an issue which is so
> important for the global public.
>
> In a doc referenced in the above doc, which is titled "Accountability
> mechanism" and can be found here
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/IRP%20Accountability%20Mechanism%20Template%20.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426866536000&api=v2
>
> and I quote from it (this is about possible ways to compose the
> Independent Review Board)
>
> (begins)
> Members to be nominated by the Board in consultation with the appointment
> by CEO, approved [how?] by community; [possible alternatives whom?
> involving a reversal of the above (i.e. community nomination and Board
> approval)] [Also consider external vetting or rating schemes for
> nominees, i.e., third party organization such as ICDR could
> appoint/nominate subject to confirmation.]
>
>   (ends)
>
> We can make no sense of all this without clearly knowing what or who is
> the 'community' here. Please help.
>
> Thanks, parminder
>
>
>
> *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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150401/0adcee1e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  1 08:09:13 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 17:39:13 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia> <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com> <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 01 April 2015 04:14 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Hi Parminder.
>
> I went to the IGF page and searched for your proposal. I’m surprised 
> that the entire group of organisers consists of civil society players 
> only.

Hi Peng Hwa

Perhaps you missed noting that we have entered the proposal not as a 
regular IGF workshop but under 'others' - calling it as an 'outreach 
event'. And out reach event for any initiative is obviously done by 
those associated with organising that event, here, the Internet Social 
Forum, which are all civil society organisations.  The Internet Social 
Forum is to be a thematic forum under the World Social Forum rubric. The 
World Social Forum in fact only allows civil society groups to 
participate and not businesses or government. Please see this link for 
WSF's criteria of paticipation . Now if you want to take up issues with 
the WSF and its criteria of participation, that is a different thing - 
there are much better worthies to defend it than I.

BTW, among the organisers are both civil society and technical community 
groups, and it has been made clear in the past that it is not necessary 
to have stakeholders as co- organisers of an IGF workshop.


>
> The online proposal form has a button that allows one to ask for help 
> if one has difficulty getting stakeholder participation. Your proposal 
> does not have that request. I presume it means that you are not 
> seeking inputs from government or the private sector.

You can conflating organisers and participants. If you look at the 
tentative panel, you will find a wide variety of stakeholders.
>
> Back in 2010, when we organised the first APrIGF, you and I had a 
> couple of side chats during the meeting in HK and you gave some 
> critical inputs that, in the long run, strengthened the meeting. One 
> of the criticisms was that we had no government representation on the MSG

As far as I remember, both at the HK meeting, and later in exchanges on 
this list, my main point was to involve the UN regional commission of 
Asia Pacific.

> (multistakeholder steering group; acronym cunningly chosen because it 
> resembles flavouring originating in Asia). There was a bit of finger 
> wagging by you even then and I explained to you that we had tried but 
> no government was stepping up. Since then, we have seen increasing 
> government involvement with the APrIGF. Fast forward to 2014 and the 
> Indian government played a major part in the APrIGF in Delhi. I don’t 
> know if you played a part in that but your critique in 2010 was 
> helpful in prodding us to get government on board. In the coming Macao 
> meeting, they are involved in sponsorships as well.
>
> So now, seeing a proposal from you where only civil society is speaker 
> and audience is puzzling. I

you are wrong on your facts .

> have battle scars from being ejected at meetings by government 
> officials between the two WSISs. They are so rare these days I wear 
> them as a badge of honour.
>
> So these are my questions that come top of my head.
>
>  1. If civil society can organise a session where no government or
>     business organisation is invited, would it be acceptable if
>     governments and business organise their own meetings among themselves?
>

Where did you read that no gov or business is invited? Further, we have 
a variety of stakeholders on the panel as well. Yes, no business at 
present. I would love to get a small developing country business but can 
never find one. If you know anyone please do refer to me.

>  1. If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the importance of
>     a multistakeholder model
>     http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would
>     not a civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?
>
I have pretty good idea about what WEF recognises and what it does not, 
and to what purpose. (BTW, do read their Global Redesign Initiative, and 
their vision of the future of governance. But if you cant read it all, 
see a short critique in this article 
<http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/cover02.htm> , go to 
the  box in the article on 'From NetMundial to the WEF'.) The workshop 
on the Internet Social Forum at the IGF is of course not only civil 
society. As for your objection to the proposed Internet Social Forum 
itself being only civil society, you will need to engage with the World 
Social Forum, at whose 2015 meeting last week about 40,000 people 
congregated from the world over. The next WSF is probably in Canada, and 
there will curely be an Internet Social Forum event there. You are 
welcome to come.

Below are the current top news about the 2015 WSF meeting. (You may also 
know that the WSF - read charter here 
<http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2>- 
was called in direct opposition to the WEF, so obviously a lots of 
people were never too happy with WEF's multistakeholderism and 
inclusiveness !)


http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/mar/23/world-social-forum-tunis-activists-united-against-global-power-grab
http://www.equaltimes.org/2015-a-key-year-for-world-social#.VRvcts3SUyo
http://cadtm.org/Declaration-of-the-Assembly-of,11452
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/27/african_economist_samir_amin_on_the

Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you if 
you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social Forum 
should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also what 
really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals to 
present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective'. Isnt 
the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .

Regards
parminder

> Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh 
> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:49 pm
> To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in 
> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, IGC 
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended 
> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your 
> Workshop Proposals
>
>
> On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for 
>> the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For 
>> those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a 
>> proposal!
>
> Hi Anja
>
> I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should 
> present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder 
> perspective".
>
> For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled 
> 'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one 
> would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in this 
> area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test of 
> 'incorporating a MS perspective'.
>
> Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop 
> on Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF, the 
> initial proposal is here 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals> 
> ... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be 
> 'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you 
> or someone else from APrIGF can tell me..
>
> Best , parminder
>>
>> With best regards,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *APrIGF Secretariat* <sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
>> Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
>> Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 
>> 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
>> To: announce at aprigf.asia <mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum*
>> *APrIGF Macao 2015*
>> *30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015*
>> *Sands Cotai Central, Macao*
>> http://2015.rigf.asia <http://aprigf.asia/>
>>
>> *Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals*
>>
>> With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just 
>> concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the 
>> overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop 
>> proposals and their request for a further deadline extension. 
>> To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more 
>> stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further 
>> extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for community 
>> members to fully develop their workshop proposals.
>>
>> We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions 
>> which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, 
>> incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of 
>> stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall 
>> promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.
>>
>> There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly 
>> encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the 
>> extended period.
>>
>> *Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: *11 Mar 2015 (Wed) *[Extended 
>> to 7 Apr (Tue)]*
>>
>> *Online Submission 
>> Form:* (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)
>>
>> If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the 
>> secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.
>>
>> *
>> If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and 
>> discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list 
>> discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in 
>> subscription request.
>>
>> We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a 
>> sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for 
>> more information.
>> *
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Secretariat of APrIGF
>> http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.dot.asia/>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rigf_discuss mailing list
>> Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org <mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named 
> and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or 
> disclose its contents.
> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150401/e15a96ca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  1 08:13:59 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 17:43:59 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia> <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com> <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <551BE107.5090103@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 01 April 2015 05:39 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 01 April 2015 04:14 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>> Hi Parminder.
>>
>> I went to the IGF page and searched for your proposal. I’m surprised 
>> that the entire group of organisers consists of civil society players 
>> only.
>
> Hi Peng Hwa
>
> Perhaps you missed noting that we have entered the proposal not as a 
> regular IGF workshop but under 'others' - calling it as an 'outreach 
> event'. And out reach event for any initiative is obviously done by 
> those associated with organising that event, here, the Internet Social 
> Forum, which are all civil society organisations.  The Internet Social 
> Forum is to be a thematic forum under the World Social Forum rubric. 
> The World Social Forum in fact only allows civil society groups to 
> participate and not businesses or government. Please see this link for 
> WSF's criteria of paticipation .

https://fsm2015.org/en/criteria-participation

> Now if you want to take up issues with the WSF and its criteria of 
> participation, that is a different thing - there are much better 
> worthies to defend it than I.
>
> BTW, among the organisers are both civil society and technical 
> community groups, and it has been made clear in the past that it is 
> not necessary to have stakeholders as co- organisers of an IGF workshop.
>
>
>>
>> The online proposal form has a button that allows one to ask for help 
>> if one has difficulty getting stakeholder participation. Your 
>> proposal does not have that request. I presume it means that you are 
>> not seeking inputs from government or the private sector.
>
> You can conflating organisers and participants. If you look at the 
> tentative panel, you will find a wide variety of stakeholders.
>>
>> Back in 2010, when we organised the first APrIGF, you and I had a 
>> couple of side chats during the meeting in HK and you gave some 
>> critical inputs that, in the long run, strengthened the meeting. One 
>> of the criticisms was that we had no government representation on the MSG
>
> As far as I remember, both at the HK meeting, and later in exchanges 
> on this list, my main point was to involve the UN regional commission 
> of Asia Pacific.
>
>> (multistakeholder steering group; acronym cunningly chosen because it 
>> resembles flavouring originating in Asia). There was a bit of finger 
>> wagging by you even then and I explained to you that we had tried but 
>> no government was stepping up. Since then, we have seen increasing 
>> government involvement with the APrIGF. Fast forward to 2014 and the 
>> Indian government played a major part in the APrIGF in Delhi. I don’t 
>> know if you played a part in that but your critique in 2010 was 
>> helpful in prodding us to get government on board. In the coming 
>> Macao meeting, they are involved in sponsorships as well.
>>
>> So now, seeing a proposal from you where only civil society is 
>> speaker and audience is puzzling. I
>
> you are wrong on your facts .
>
>> have battle scars from being ejected at meetings by government 
>> officials between the two WSISs. They are so rare these days I wear 
>> them as a badge of honour.
>>
>> So these are my questions that come top of my head.
>>
>>  1. If civil society can organise a session where no government or
>>     business organisation is invited, would it be acceptable if
>>     governments and business organise their own meetings among
>>     themselves?
>>
>
> Where did you read that no gov or business is invited? Further, we 
> have a variety of stakeholders on the panel as well. Yes, no business 
> at present. I would love to get a small developing country business 
> but can never find one. If you know anyone please do refer to me.
>
>>  1. If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the importance of
>>     a multistakeholder model
>>     http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would
>>     not a civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?
>>
> I have pretty good idea about what WEF recognises and what it does 
> not, and to what purpose. (BTW, do read their Global Redesign 
> Initiative, and their vision of the future of governance. But if you 
> cant read it all, see a short critique in this article 
> <http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/cover02.htm> , go to 
> the  box in the article on 'From NetMundial to the WEF'.) The workshop 
> on the Internet Social Forum at the IGF is of course not only civil 
> society. As for your objection to the proposed Internet Social Forum 
> itself being only civil society, you will need to engage with the 
> World Social Forum, at whose 2015 meeting last week about 40,000 
> people congregated from the world over. The next WSF is probably in 
> Canada, and there will curely be an Internet Social Forum event there. 
> You are welcome to come.
>
> Below are the current top news about the 2015 WSF meeting. (You may 
> also know that the WSF - read charter here 
> <http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2>- 
> was called in direct opposition to the WEF, so obviously a lots of 
> people were never too happy with WEF's multistakeholderism and 
> inclusiveness !)
>
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/mar/23/world-social-forum-tunis-activists-united-against-global-power-grab
> http://www.equaltimes.org/2015-a-key-year-for-world-social#.VRvcts3SUyo
> http://cadtm.org/Declaration-of-the-Assembly-of,11452
> http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/27/african_economist_samir_amin_on_the
>
> Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you 
> if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social 
> Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also 
> what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals 
> to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective'. 
> Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .
>
> Regards
> parminder
>
>> Regards,
>> Peng Hwa
>>
>> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net 
>> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh 
>> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:49 pm
>> To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in 
>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, IGC 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended 
>> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your 
>> Workshop Proposals
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for 
>>> the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For 
>>> those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a 
>>> proposal!
>>
>> Hi Anja
>>
>> I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should 
>> present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder 
>> perspective".
>>
>> For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled 
>> 'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one 
>> would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in 
>> this area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test 
>> of 'incorporating a MS perspective'.
>>
>> Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop 
>> on Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF, 
>> the initial proposal is here 
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals> 
>> ... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be 
>> 'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you 
>> or someone else from APrIGF can tell me..
>>
>> Best , parminder
>>>
>>> With best regards,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *APrIGF Secretariat* <sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
>>> Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
>>> Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 
>>> 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
>>> To: announce at aprigf.asia <mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum*
>>> *APrIGF Macao 2015*
>>> *30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015*
>>> *Sands Cotai Central, Macao*
>>> http://2015.rigf.asia <http://aprigf.asia/>
>>>
>>> *Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals*
>>>
>>> With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just 
>>> concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the 
>>> overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop 
>>> proposals and their request for a further deadline extension. 
>>> To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more 
>>> stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further 
>>> extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for 
>>> community members to fully develop their workshop proposals.
>>>
>>> We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions 
>>> which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, 
>>> incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of 
>>> stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall 
>>> promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.
>>>
>>> There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly 
>>> encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the 
>>> extended period.
>>>
>>> *Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: *11 Mar 2015 (Wed) 
>>> *[Extended to 7 Apr (Tue)]*
>>>
>>> *Online Submission 
>>> Form:* (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)
>>>
>>> If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the 
>>> secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.
>>>
>>> *
>>> If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF 
>>> and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list 
>>> discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in 
>>> subscription request.
>>>
>>> We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a 
>>> sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for 
>>> more information.
>>> *
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Secretariat of APrIGF
>>> http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.dot.asia/>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rigf_discuss mailing list
>>> Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org <mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
>>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://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
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) 
>> named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the 
>> intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, 
>> or disclose its contents.
>> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. 
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150401/7c65c44d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lowe.recursos at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 11:13:55 2015
From: lowe.recursos at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TGXDs24gSi4=?=)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 12:13:55 -0300
Subject: [governance] About ToR NetMundial Iniciative (NMI) [Terminos de
 Referencia, Iniciativa NetMundial]
Message-ID: <CAKiZEKOfDbWOPpq3b384N_=-TsR56eCfh8DhDTuP=dHV-QNnVg@mail.gmail.com>

" The Inaugural Coordination Council (“Council”) of the NETmundial
Initiative (“Initiative”) - a diverse, cross-regional group consisting of
23 global stakeholders from civil society, government, the private sector,
technical and academic community, and international entities - held a
working meeting on 31 March 2015 at Stanford University in California, USA.

The group released a draft Terms of Reference (ToR) document for a public
comment period from 1 April - 1 May 2015
<http://comments.netmundial.org/> (23:59
UTC). During this time, stakeholders, including Council members, will have
the opportunity to provide input that will be considered before the final
adoption of the text at the Council’s inaugural meeting"
More information in
https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-stanford-communiqu%C3%A9

[El Consejo de Coordinación Inagural de la Iniciativa NetMundial tuvo un
encuentro el 31 de marzo en la universidad de Stanford. Es posible comentar
el documento en el sitio web http://comments.netmundial.org hasta el
primero de mayo. Más información en
https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-stanford-communiqu%C3%A9
]

J. León Unger
Argentina Hub for Internet Governance
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ArgentinahubIG/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150401/67a6b932/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  1 13:48:07 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 04:48:07 +1100
Subject: [governance] Update on NMI
Message-ID: <A6C3F020190F42799C396D34A1B51808@Toshiba>

This is just a quick update on the NetMundial Initiative (NMI). Please feel free to copy to other lists.



As many of you will already know, NMI Coordination Council (CC) has just held its first working meeting at Stanford University in Palo Alto on March 31. A list of those who attended can be found at the end of the draft Communique at https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-stanford-communiqu%C3%A9. 

In addition to those attending,  Bill Drake and Anriette Esterhuysen (CC members) were able to participate remotely for at least part of the day-long meeting, on sometimes shaky remote connections. Many other people took advantage of the opportunity to listen in on deliberations.

The main formal output of the meeting is a Draft Terms of Reference, which is now open for public comments at http://comments.netmundial.org/. The platform used for comments is that used for the original NetMundial event last year in Brazil.

I would encourage people to comment on the document and help make it better. 

A few personal observations; I am pleased that we were able to maintain in the opening paragraph references to human rights and to managing the internet in the public interest, despite some suggestions that these references might be removed. However; I was personally disappointed that in the process of arriving at mutually agreeable text in a short period of time references to cybersecurity and mass surveillance were taken out of the text; I expected some opposition to the latter, but I think the cybersecurity references are vitally important and I am sure some well crafted words can make their way into the final text. There are many ways in which the text (and more importantly the initiative itself) can be strengthened, and I would particularly draw your attention also to the section on Scope, where further clarity and suggestions could assist substantial improvements. 

The current plan is for the document to be finally adopted at a first meeting of the full Council (the meeting above was described as a “working meeting”). Current planning suggests this might be in Costa Rica in June. But that might change given availability of some of the governmental and corporate people involved.

The meeting also got to talk about some operational issues. Since the formation of the Coordination Council progress has been fairly slow, perhaps largely because of the lack of structure and leadership, as well as a lack of trust. Some small working groups were set up and most likely some other operational structural issues will be addressed as a result of this. 

I should also mention that to date the progress has been very co-operative across all sectors involved, and indeed on most discussions you would not have unanimity of opinion within any stakeholder group; but rather a variety of opinions. I expect the same to be the case during the public consultations, but I also expect that the process of hearing many voices and gaining wider input will substantially clarify and improve the document. Many people are undecided about NMI at this stage, which is to be expected; and whatever it might be should appropriately derive from public inputs. So I urge you to follow the link above and help to shape this initiative to take an appropriate role moving forward.

One more thing I should add is the role that Marilia Maciel has played to date, chairing the series of online meetings which developed the Draft Terms of Reference. Marilia had to manage a diverse and overly large group, many differing opinions as to what NMI is or should be, poor connections and dropouts on all calls, language issues, geopolitical game playing, and unruly participants. She did a great job! 



Ian Peter




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150402/a4e0869e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  1 14:55:00 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:55:00 -0700
Subject: [governance] Update on NMI
In-Reply-To: <A6C3F020190F42799C396D34A1B51808@Toshiba>
References: <A6C3F020190F42799C396D34A1B51808@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <551C3F04.704@eff.org>

Thanks Ian for this very useful summary.  I'm copying the Best Bits list
too (it needn't be copied on follow-ups though).

On 1/04/2015 10:48 am, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> This is just a quick update on the NetMundial Initiative (NMI). Please
> feel free to copy to other lists.
>
>  
>
> As many of you will already know, NMI Coordination Council (CC) has
> just held its first working meeting at Stanford University in Palo
> Alto on March 31. A list of those who attended can be found at the end
> of the draft Communique at
> https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-stanford-communiqu%C3%A9.
>
>
> In addition to those attending,  Bill Drake and Anriette Esterhuysen
> (CC members) were able to participate remotely for at least part of
> the day-long meeting, on sometimes shaky remote connections. Many
> other people took advantage of the opportunity to listen in on
> deliberations.
>
> The main formal output of the meeting is a Draft Terms of Reference,
> which is now open for public comments at
> http://comments.netmundial.org/. The platform used for comments is
> that used for the original NetMundial event last year in Brazil.
>
> I would encourage people to comment on the document and help make it
> better.
>
> A few personal observations; I am pleased that we were able to
> maintain in the opening paragraph references to human rights and to
> managing the internet in the public interest, despite some suggestions
> that these references might be removed. However; I was personally
> disappointed that in the process of arriving at mutually agreeable
> text in a short period of time references to cybersecurity and mass
> surveillance were taken out of the text; I expected some opposition to
> the latter, but I think the cybersecurity references are vitally
> important and I am sure some well crafted words can make their way
> into the final text. There are many ways in which the text (and more
> importantly the initiative itself) can be strengthened, and I would
> particularly draw your attention also to the section on Scope, where
> further clarity and suggestions could assist substantial improvements.
>
> The current plan is for the document to be finally adopted at a first
> meeting of the full Council (the meeting above was described as a
> “working meeting”). Current planning suggests this might be in Costa
> Rica in June. But that might change given availability of some of the
> governmental and corporate people involved.
>
> The meeting also got to talk about some operational issues. Since the
> formation of the Coordination Council progress has been fairly slow,
> perhaps largely because of the lack of structure and leadership, as
> well as a lack of trust. Some small working groups were set up and
> most likely some other operational structural issues will be addressed
> as a result of this.
>
> I should also mention that to date the progress has been very
> co-operative across all sectors involved, and indeed on most
> discussions you would not have unanimity of opinion within any
> stakeholder group; but rather a variety of opinions. I expect the same
> to be the case during the public consultations, but I also expect that
> the process of hearing many voices and gaining wider input will
> substantially clarify and improve the document. Many people are
> undecided about NMI at this stage, which is to be expected; and
> whatever it might be should appropriately derive from public inputs.
> So I urge you to follow the link above and help to shape this
> initiative to take an appropriate role moving forward.
>
> One more thing I should add is the role that Marilia Maciel has played
> to date, chairing the series of online meetings which developed the
> Draft Terms of Reference. Marilia had to manage a diverse and overly
> large group, many differing opinions as to what NMI is or should be,
> poor connections and dropouts on all calls, language issues,
> geopolitical game playing, and unruly participants. She did a great job!
>
>  
>
> Ian Peter
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150401/5dced996/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150401/5dced996/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 15:43:50 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:43:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] Update on NMI
In-Reply-To: <A6C3F020190F42799C396D34A1B51808@Toshiba>
References: <A6C3F020190F42799C396D34A1B51808@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4PReO4cVT5zJwhGqYqDWcW27q86Hq8wJF-eLPAd9hvxQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Ian.
Deirdre

On 1 April 2015 at 13:48, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   This is just a quick update on the NetMundial Initiative (NMI). Please
> feel free to copy to other lists.
>
>
>
> As many of you will already know, NMI Coordination Council (CC) has just
> held its first working meeting at Stanford University in Palo Alto on March
> 31. A list of those who attended can be found at the end of the draft
> Communique at
> https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-stanford-communiqu%C3%A9.
>
>
> In addition to those attending,  Bill Drake and Anriette Esterhuysen (CC
> members) were able to participate remotely for at least part of the
> day-long meeting, on sometimes shaky remote connections. Many other people
> took advantage of the opportunity to listen in on deliberations.
>
> The main formal output of the meeting is a Draft Terms of Reference, which
> is now open for public comments at http://comments.netmundial.org/. The
> platform used for comments is that used for the original NetMundial event
> last year in Brazil.
>
> I would encourage people to comment on the document and help make it
> better.
>
> A few personal observations; I am pleased that we were able to maintain in
> the opening paragraph references to human rights and to managing the
> internet in the public interest, despite some suggestions that these
> references might be removed. However; I was personally disappointed that in
> the process of arriving at mutually agreeable text in a short period of
> time references to cybersecurity and mass surveillance were taken out of
> the text; I expected some opposition to the latter, but I think the
> cybersecurity references are vitally important and I am sure some well
> crafted words can make their way into the final text. There are many ways
> in which the text (and more importantly the initiative itself) can be
> strengthened, and I would particularly draw your attention also to the
> section on Scope, where further clarity and suggestions could assist
> substantial improvements.
>
> The current plan is for the document to be finally adopted at a first
> meeting of the full Council (the meeting above was described as a “working
> meeting”). Current planning suggests this might be in Costa Rica in June.
> But that might change given availability of some of the governmental and
> corporate people involved.
>
> The meeting also got to talk about some operational issues. Since the
> formation of the Coordination Council progress has been fairly slow,
> perhaps largely because of the lack of structure and leadership, as well as
> a lack of trust. Some small working groups were set up and most likely some
> other operational structural issues will be addressed as a result of this.
>
> I should also mention that to date the progress has been very co-operative
> across all sectors involved, and indeed on most discussions you would not
> have unanimity of opinion within any stakeholder group; but rather a
> variety of opinions. I expect the same to be the case during the public
> consultations, but I also expect that the process of hearing many voices
> and gaining wider input will substantially clarify and improve the
> document. Many people are undecided about NMI at this stage, which is to be
> expected; and whatever it might be should appropriately derive from public
> inputs. So I urge you to follow the link above and help to shape this
> initiative to take an appropriate role moving forward.
>
> One more thing I should add is the role that Marilia Maciel has played to
> date, chairing the series of online meetings which developed the Draft
> Terms of Reference. Marilia had to manage a diverse and overly large group,
> many differing opinions as to what NMI is or should be, poor connections
> and dropouts on all calls, language issues, geopolitical game playing, and
> unruly participants. She did a great job!
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150401/d1733d90/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  2 03:49:50 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:49:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] On the legitimacy of civil-society-only meetings, e.g.
 ISF (was Re: APrIGF Macao...)
In-Reply-To: <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
	<618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
	<CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
	<551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net>
	<D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <20150402094950.62038db8@quill>

On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:44:56 +0000
"Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote:

> If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the
> importance of a multistakeholder model
> http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a
> civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?

Actually the World Economic Forum (WEF) has for quite some time now been
a highly influential proponent of multistakeholderism, and if my
current understanding of the history of multistakeholderism and its
currently-dominant ideology is correct, the WEF even deserves to be
credited as being one of the main inventors of that ideology.

I'm going to address the above question slightly outside of its original
context, since it was asked in the context of an IGF workshop proposal,
for which the implied claim of that proposed workshop being a
“civil-society-only” meeting is simply false.

Independently of that context, I think that it is important to address
this questioning of the legitimacy of civil society only meetings. For
example, the Internet Social Forum itself (for which I am among the
proponents) is in fact intended to be a “civil society only” meeting
(specifically in the sense of the World Social Forum participation
criteria).

In my view, questioning the legitimacy of holding civil-society-only
meetings for purposes of discussion and strategizing and seeking to
build momentum within civil society for proposed public interest
oriented agendas is like questioning the legitimacy of the desire of
businesses to be profitable, or questioning the legitimacy of the desire
of governments to fund themselves through taxes.

I find it quite noteworthy that an ideology of multistakeholderism has
brought us to the point where the legitimacy of quite central kinds of
civil society processes are now being called into question.

Greetings,
Norbert

P.S. For the benefit of any newcomers to this debate:
IGF= Internet Governance Forum, http://intgovforum.org
ISF= Internet Social Forum, http://InternetSocialForum.net

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

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

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

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 04:29:25 2015
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:29:25 +0000
Subject: [governance] Opening Session @ the Global Conference on Cyberspace
 - thoughts welcome
Message-ID: <CADFgh117w=fAZ48vvDcz-9qHDeLKNE1_r1yYxz=zW_whGr0jhA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

If all goes as planned, I will be at the opening panel on the morning of
April 16th.  If you have any thoughts you would like me "not to forget",
please feel free to share.  I have pasted the blurb, including the
questions below.  Kindly note the following:

   1. Because I only arrive on the 15th, I will be missing the Civil
   Society pre-event. So apologies upfront.
   2. I will try, to the measure possible to represent Civil Society views,
   but I do not and will not pretend to be representing anybody.
   3. I neither have the energy, time, nor bandwidth to engage in any
   debates, especially the type that seeks to lead nowhere, that has become
   the signature of some CS spaces.
   4. Feel free to mail nnenna at webfoundation directly if that is the best
   option for you.

==

Opening session

Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, will open the conference,
followed by an introduction by Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Netherlands, host of the GCCS. The conference will start with a
strategic discussion among representatives of all stakeholders on the most
important current developments in cyberspace. A panel consisting of
high-level government officials and private sector and civil society
leaders will sketch the main opportunities, dilemmas and challenges facing
the further evolution of the internet. All main issues of the conference
will be touched upon: internet governance and multistakeholder cooperation,
freedom and privacy online, the digital divide, the internet as enabler for
social and economic development, cyber security and cybercrime. The panel
will address questions such as:

   - How should we balance freedom, security and economic development and
   innovation in cyberspace?
   - How do we guarantee an open, free and secure internet?
   - What are the responsibilities of the various stakeholders in
   cyberspace, e.g.: what  role should governments vis a vis the private
   sector play in protecting privacy online?
   - How can we improve cooperation between governments, private sector and
   civil society in cyber-related matters?
   - How can we maintain and improve trust by consumers in the internet?
   - How can we stimulate research and development, and interdisciplinary
   academic cooperation in order to strengthen cyberspace?

The panel will be followed by ministerial statements.

*Panelists:*

   - Mireille Ballestrazzi
   <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Mireille%20Ballestrazzi.pdf>,
   President of Interpol
   - Vint Cerf
   <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Vint%20Cerf.pdf>,
   Vice-President of Google
   - Nnenna Nwakanma
   <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Nenna%20Nwakanma.pdf>,
   World Wide Web Foundation
   - Fadi Chehadé
   <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Fadi%20Chehad%C3%A9%20opening%20session.pdf>,
   CEO ICANN
   - Yurie Ito
   <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Yurie%20Ito%20Opening.pdf>,
Director
   of Global Coordination Division for the JPCERT/CC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150402/3fd6c8c0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  2 05:22:50 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 02:22:50 -0700
Subject: [governance] Update on NMI
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4PReO4cVT5zJwhGqYqDWcW27q86Hq8wJF-eLPAd9hvxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A6C3F020190F42799C396D34A1B51808@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4PReO4cVT5zJwhGqYqDWcW27q86Hq8wJF-eLPAd9hvxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02ea01d06d26$979084c0$c6b18e40$@gmail.com>

Ian,

 

Is the video of the meeting accessible anywhere.

 

Tks,

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: April 1, 2015 12:44 PM
To: Internet Governance; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] Update on NMI

 

Thank you Ian.

Deirdre

 

On 1 April 2015 at 13:48, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com> > wrote:

This is just a quick update on the NetMundial Initiative (NMI). Please feel free to copy to other lists.

 

As many of you will already know, NMI Coordination Council (CC) has just held its first working meeting at Stanford University in Palo Alto on March 31. A list of those who attended can be found at the end of the draft Communique at https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-stanford-communiqu%C3%A9. 

In addition to those attending,  Bill Drake and Anriette Esterhuysen (CC members) were able to participate remotely for at least part of the day-long meeting, on sometimes shaky remote connections. Many other people took advantage of the opportunity to listen in on deliberations.

The main formal output of the meeting is a Draft Terms of Reference, which is now open for public comments at http://comments.netmundial.org/. The platform used for comments is that used for the original NetMundial event last year in Brazil.

I would encourage people to comment on the document and help make it better. 

A few personal observations; I am pleased that we were able to maintain in the opening paragraph references to human rights and to managing the internet in the public interest, despite some suggestions that these references might be removed. However; I was personally disappointed that in the process of arriving at mutually agreeable text in a short period of time references to cybersecurity and mass surveillance were taken out of the text; I expected some opposition to the latter, but I think the cybersecurity references are vitally important and I am sure some well crafted words can make their way into the final text. There are many ways in which the text (and more importantly the initiative itself) can be strengthened, and I would particularly draw your attention also to the section on Scope, where further clarity and suggestions could assist substantial improvements. 

The current plan is for the document to be finally adopted at a first meeting of the full Council (the meeting above was described as a “working meeting”). Current planning suggests this might be in Costa Rica in June. But that might change given availability of some of the governmental and corporate people involved.

The meeting also got to talk about some operational issues. Since the formation of the Coordination Council progress has been fairly slow, perhaps largely because of the lack of structure and leadership, as well as a lack of trust. Some small working groups were set up and most likely some other operational structural issues will be addressed as a result of this. 

I should also mention that to date the progress has been very co-operative across all sectors involved, and indeed on most discussions you would not have unanimity of opinion within any stakeholder group; but rather a variety of opinions. I expect the same to be the case during the public consultations, but I also expect that the process of hearing many voices and gaining wider input will substantially clarify and improve the document. Many people are undecided about NMI at this stage, which is to be expected; and whatever it might be should appropriately derive from public inputs. So I urge you to follow the link above and help to shape this initiative to take an appropriate role moving forward.

One more thing I should add is the role that Marilia Maciel has played to date, chairing the series of online meetings which developed the Draft Terms of Reference. Marilia had to manage a diverse and overly large group, many differing opinions as to what NMI is or should be, poor connections and dropouts on all calls, language issues, geopolitical game playing, and unruly participants. She did a great job! 

 

Ian Peter

 

 


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

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

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





 

-- 

“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150402/a9d1242a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 08:16:53 2015
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:16:53 +0500
Subject: [governance] US to impose sanctions on foreign cyber attackers
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtOC50v_UB5QOgSeH2_D0M5aJnmpWxD+QY0J+HVAo337Kg@mail.gmail.com>

How far will nations go with addressing the cyberattack threat?
Pakistan has a cybercrime bill in the making that treats such attacks
within its borders as treason and severe punishments while larger
powerful nations with global reach like the US are going to treat this
possibly with sanctions. Civil Society has so far been a back seat
audience on such contemporary security issues. There have been
academic interventions on such subjects but within the practitioner
and regulatory spaces, there hardly have been any alternative
approaches to seriously address such issue. May be some consideration
in future IGFs?

FYI
Obama threatens foreign cyber attackers with sanctions
Warwick Ashford, Thursday 02 April 2015 09:45
Computer Weekly - CYBER SECURITY
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500243644/Obama-threatens-foreign-cyber-attackers-with-sanctions

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Public Policy Analyst
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/

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

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Apr  2 11:38:07 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:38:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] US to impose sanctions on foreign cyber  attackers
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtOC50v_UB5QOgSeH2_D0M5aJnmpWxD+QY0J+HVAo337Kg@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CAHuaJtOC50v_UB5QOgSeH2_D0M5aJnmpWxD+QY0J+HVAo337Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1YdhAo-0007vL-LM@igcaucus.org>

Fouad,

the problem is not that much what they do, but that they do it in 
order to accustom us to what they are going to do soon - by Sept. 30, 
2015: i.e. to formally make ICANN the international law of the 
internet - and the FCC the cybersupreme court. The transition is from 
an US Executive Dominion to a colonny under US jursdiction (cf. TPP, 
TAFTA, etc.)
Up to now, the only consideration for an alternative is my appeal 
(http://iuwg.net/index.php/Letter_to_Lawrence_E._Strickling,_Assistant_Secretary,_NTIA). 


RFC 2026 states: "In all cases a decision concerning the disposition 
of the dispute, and the communication of that decision to the parties 
involved, must be accomplished within a reasonable period of time." 
The delay in responding shows that they consider it carefully as it 
desserves. So far everything is on track. I expect that several 
"MYCANN Plugs-in" will be ready by Oct. 1st.

jfc


At 14:16 02/04/2015, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

>How far will nations go with addressing the cyberattack threat?
>Pakistan has a cybercrime bill in the making that treats such attacks
>within its borders as treason and severe punishments while larger
>powerful nations with global reach like the US are going to treat this
>possibly with sanctions. Civil Society has so far been a back seat
>audience on such contemporary security issues. There have been
>academic interventions on such subjects but within the practitioner
>and regulatory spaces, there hardly have been any alternative
>approaches to seriously address such issue. May be some consideration
>in future IGFs?
>
>FYI
>Obama threatens foreign cyber attackers with sanctions
>Warwick Ashford, Thursday 02 April 2015 09:45
>Computer Weekly - CYBER SECURITY
>http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500243644/Obama-threatens-foreign-cyber-attackers-with-sanctions
>
>--
>Regards.
>--------------------------
>Fouad Bajwa
>Public Policy Analyst
>Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your 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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 12:08:57 2015
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:08:57 +0100
Subject: [governance] Opening Session @ the Global Conference on
 Cyberspace - thoughts welcome
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh117w=fAZ48vvDcz-9qHDeLKNE1_r1yYxz=zW_whGr0jhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh117w=fAZ48vvDcz-9qHDeLKNE1_r1yYxz=zW_whGr0jhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHj_20jm89aC+CSH5fTkqijDdBCNQoXrWjsODtu1dHoneipOrA@mail.gmail.com>

I support this option and can we have a framework following Kayode question?

*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




2015-04-02 9:29 GMT+01:00 Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>:

> Dear all,
>
> If all goes as planned, I will be at the opening panel on the morning of
> April 16th.  If you have any thoughts you would like me "not to forget",
> please feel free to share.  I have pasted the blurb, including the
> questions below.  Kindly note the following:
>
>    1. Because I only arrive on the 15th, I will be missing the Civil
>    Society pre-event. So apologies upfront.
>    2. I will try, to the measure possible to represent Civil Society
>    views, but I do not and will not pretend to be representing anybody.
>    3. I neither have the energy, time, nor bandwidth to engage in any
>    debates, especially the type that seeks to lead nowhere, that has become
>    the signature of some CS spaces.
>    4. Feel free to mail nnenna at webfoundation directly if that is the best
>    option for you.
>
> ==
>
> Opening session
>
> Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, will open the conference,
> followed by an introduction by Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs
> of the Netherlands, host of the GCCS. The conference will start with a
> strategic discussion among representatives of all stakeholders on the most
> important current developments in cyberspace. A panel consisting of
> high-level government officials and private sector and civil society
> leaders will sketch the main opportunities, dilemmas and challenges facing
> the further evolution of the internet. All main issues of the conference
> will be touched upon: internet governance and multistakeholder cooperation,
> freedom and privacy online, the digital divide, the internet as enabler for
> social and economic development, cyber security and cybercrime. The panel
> will address questions such as:
>
>    - How should we balance freedom, security and economic development and
>    innovation in cyberspace?
>    - How do we guarantee an open, free and secure internet?
>    - What are the responsibilities of the various stakeholders in
>    cyberspace, e.g.: what  role should governments vis a vis the private
>    sector play in protecting privacy online?
>    - How can we improve cooperation between governments, private sector
>    and civil society in cyber-related matters?
>    - How can we maintain and improve trust by consumers in the internet?
>    - How can we stimulate research and development, and interdisciplinary
>    academic cooperation in order to strengthen cyberspace?
>
> The panel will be followed by ministerial statements.
>
> *Panelists:*
>
>    - Mireille Ballestrazzi
>    <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Mireille%20Ballestrazzi.pdf>,
>    President of Interpol
>    - Vint Cerf
>    <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Vint%20Cerf.pdf>,
>    Vice-President of Google
>    - Nnenna Nwakanma
>    <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Nenna%20Nwakanma.pdf>,
>    World Wide Web Foundation
>    - Fadi Chehadé
>    <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Fadi%20Chehad%C3%A9%20opening%20session.pdf>,
>    CEO ICANN
>    - Yurie Ito
>    <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Yurie%20Ito%20Opening.pdf>, Director
>    of Global Coordination Division for the JPCERT/CC
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150402/7f83fe54/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From devonrb at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 12:36:32 2015
From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:36:32 -0500
Subject: [governance] Opening Session @ the Global Conference on
 Cyberspace - thoughts welcome
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh117w=fAZ48vvDcz-9qHDeLKNE1_r1yYxz=zW_whGr0jhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh117w=fAZ48vvDcz-9qHDeLKNE1_r1yYxz=zW_whGr0jhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE1T72TCg-mEAiDJbyLErxysmc+D98q0T2eTEGxPE=xA9jCFEQ@mail.gmail.com>

I might be a bit out of touch but there is a conundrum between the level of
individual freedom and security...security is being able to uniquely
identify every user of the internet, and  have the capacity to mitigate
against illegal or unsanctioned use... freedom here relates to the highest
concepts of human rights...and we can list them...if we can find seven
interrelated principles of human rights...and balance them against the
character of each user...then we would have set the foundation for focused
dialog on freedom vs security.
Devon
On Apr 2, 2015 3:30 AM, "Nnenna Nwakanma" <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> If all goes as planned, I will be at the opening panel on the morning of
> April 16th.  If you have any thoughts you would like me "not to forget",
> please feel free to share.  I have pasted the blurb, including the
> questions below.  Kindly note the following:
>
>    1. Because I only arrive on the 15th, I will be missing the Civil
>    Society pre-event. So apologies upfront.
>    2. I will try, to the measure possible to represent Civil Society
>    views, but I do not and will not pretend to be representing anybody.
>    3. I neither have the energy, time, nor bandwidth to engage in any
>    debates, especially the type that seeks to lead nowhere, that has become
>    the signature of some CS spaces.
>    4. Feel free to mail nnenna at webfoundation directly if that is the best
>    option for you.
>
> ==
>
> Opening session
>
> Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, will open the conference,
> followed by an introduction by Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs
> of the Netherlands, host of the GCCS. The conference will start with a
> strategic discussion among representatives of all stakeholders on the most
> important current developments in cyberspace. A panel consisting of
> high-level government officials and private sector and civil society
> leaders will sketch the main opportunities, dilemmas and challenges facing
> the further evolution of the internet. All main issues of the conference
> will be touched upon: internet governance and multistakeholder cooperation,
> freedom and privacy online, the digital divide, the internet as enabler for
> social and economic development, cyber security and cybercrime. The panel
> will address questions such as:
>
>    - How should we balance freedom, security and economic development and
>    innovation in cyberspace?
>    - How do we guarantee an open, free and secure internet?
>    - What are the responsibilities of the various stakeholders in
>    cyberspace, e.g.: what  role should governments vis a vis the private
>    sector play in protecting privacy online?
>    - How can we improve cooperation between governments, private sector
>    and civil society in cyber-related matters?
>    - How can we maintain and improve trust by consumers in the internet?
>    - How can we stimulate research and development, and interdisciplinary
>    academic cooperation in order to strengthen cyberspace?
>
> The panel will be followed by ministerial statements.
>
> *Panelists:*
>
>    - Mireille Ballestrazzi
>    <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Mireille%20Ballestrazzi.pdf>,
>    President of Interpol
>    - Vint Cerf
>    <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Vint%20Cerf.pdf>,
>    Vice-President of Google
>    - Nnenna Nwakanma
>    <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Nenna%20Nwakanma.pdf>,
>    World Wide Web Foundation
>    - Fadi Chehadé
>    <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Fadi%20Chehad%C3%A9%20opening%20session.pdf>,
>    CEO ICANN
>    - Yurie Ito
>    <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Yurie%20Ito%20Opening.pdf>, Director
>    of Global Coordination Division for the JPCERT/CC
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150402/3f93eada/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu Apr  2 13:09:32 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 19:09:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] New Deputy Secretary-General at UNCTAD
Message-ID: <674A4D2F-C911-4A6E-A924-833D9A3FA528@consensus.pro>

Dear all,

For those of you who follow the work of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) especially the work of the CSTD related to WSIS - it has a new Deputy Secretary-General, Joakim Reiter of Sweden.  (For those who don't know UNCTAD is to developing countries as OECD is to the developed world).

For those of us active in trade policy policy Joakim is a well-known and very well-liked and respected person; he's the former Swedish WTO Ambassador and Sweden's Geneva-based WSIS and Internet Governance policy person reported to him and now reports to his successor.

I think we'll find that UNCTAD becomes a more vibrant and engaged organisation - I can tell you from personal experience that Joakim personally is committed to policies that help real people, and one of his favourite phrases is "In Geneva there are people who make a point, and there are people who make a difference." - he's definitely in the latter camp. As WTO Ambassador he was a strong proponent of the Internet's power to create opportunity and reduce barriers irrespective of geography, and also passionate about the importance of freedom of expression and speech who was very forthright himself and empowered those who worked for him to do the same. 

You can follow him on Twitter @UNCTADReiter - he actually tweeted on his first day on the job, which may well be the first time a DSG-level person has ever done that ;)

-- 
Regards,
 
Nick 
Tel: +41 (24) 565 85 00
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
email: nashton at consensus.pro
GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com
PGP: 6995293D
Fingerprint: 9794  3DC C 8F 27 9 BF8  3105  298 1 96 FA F 538  6995  293 D
Skype: nashtonhart

“Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything.”  - Plato





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150402/cdd6a907/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150402/cdd6a907/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Thu Apr  2 13:50:06 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:50:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
 <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
 <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D143A10F.3C8BD%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>

Hi Parminder.

Bunch of meetings whole day ending with a minor emergency that had to be attended to because it’s a holiday tomorrow.

I’m glad I had the facts wrong in the right places. (You know what I mean.)

You had the question:
>Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective’.

I’m not in the MAG and I’m only one voice in the APrIGF selection committee.

>Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .
The devil is in the detail. How does one define public interest?

Had a long day.

Good night.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 8:09 pm
To: Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals



On Wednesday 01 April 2015 04:14 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
Hi Parminder.

I went to the IGF page and searched for your proposal. I’m surprised that the entire group of organisers consists of civil society players only.

Hi Peng Hwa

Perhaps you missed noting that we have entered the proposal not as a regular IGF workshop but under 'others' - calling it as an 'outreach event'. And out reach event for any initiative is obviously done by those associated with organising that event, here, the Internet Social Forum, which are all civil society organisations.  The Internet Social Forum is to be a thematic forum under the World Social Forum rubric. The World Social Forum in fact only allows civil society groups to participate and not businesses or government. Please see this link for WSF's criteria of paticipation . Now if you want to take up issues with the WSF and its criteria of participation, that is a different thing - there are much better worthies to defend it than I.

BTW, among the organisers are both civil society and technical community groups, and it has been made clear in the past that it is not necessary to have stakeholders as co- organisers of an IGF workshop.



The online proposal form has a button that allows one to ask for help if one has difficulty getting stakeholder participation. Your proposal does not have that request. I presume it means that you are not seeking inputs from government or the private sector.

You can conflating organisers and participants. If you look at the tentative panel, you will find a wide variety of stakeholders.

Back in 2010, when we organised the first APrIGF, you and I had a couple of side chats during the meeting in HK and you gave some critical inputs that, in the long run, strengthened the meeting. One of the criticisms was that we had no government representation on the MSG

As far as I remember, both at the HK meeting, and later in exchanges on this list, my main point was to involve the UN regional commission of Asia Pacific.

(multistakeholder steering group; acronym cunningly chosen because it resembles flavouring originating in Asia). There was a bit of finger wagging by you even then and I explained to you that we had tried but no government was stepping up. Since then, we have seen increasing government involvement with the APrIGF. Fast forward to 2014 and the Indian government played a major part in the APrIGF in Delhi. I don’t know if you played a part in that but your critique in 2010 was helpful in prodding us to get government on board. In the coming Macao meeting, they are involved in sponsorships as well.

So now, seeing a proposal from you where only civil society is speaker and audience is puzzling. I

you are wrong on your facts .

have battle scars from being ejected at meetings by government officials between the two WSISs. They are so rare these days I wear them as a badge of honour.

So these are my questions that come top of my head.

  1.  If civil society can organise a session where no government or business organisation is invited, would it be acceptable if governments and business organise their own meetings among themselves?

Where did you read that no gov or business is invited? Further, we have a variety of stakeholders on the panel as well. Yes, no business at present. I would love to get a small developing country business but can never find one. If you know anyone please do refer to me.


  1.  If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the importance of a multistakeholder model http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?

I have pretty good idea about what WEF recognises and what it does not, and to what purpose. (BTW, do read their Global Redesign Initiative, and their vision of the future of governance. But if you cant read it all, see a short critique in this article<http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/cover02.htm> , go to the  box in the article on 'From NetMundial to the WEF'.) The workshop on the Internet Social Forum at the IGF is of course not only civil society. As for your objection to the proposed Internet Social Forum itself being only civil society, you will need to engage with the World Social Forum, at whose 2015 meeting last week about 40,000 people congregated from the world over. The next WSF is probably in Canada, and there will curely be an Internet Social Forum event there. You are welcome to come.

Below are the current top news about the 2015 WSF meeting. (You may also know that the WSF - read charter here <http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2> - was called in direct opposition to the WEF, so obviously a lots of people were never too happy with WEF's multistakeholderism and inclusiveness !)


http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/mar/23/world-social-forum-tunis-activists-united-against-global-power-grab
http://www.equaltimes.org/2015-a-key-year-for-world-social#.VRvcts3SUyo
http://cadtm.org/Declaration-of-the-Assembly-of,11452
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/27/african_economist_samir_amin_on_the

Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective'. Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .

Regards
parminder

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:49 pm
To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals


On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Dear all,

I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a proposal!

Hi Anja

I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective".

For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled 'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in this area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test of 'incorporating a MS perspective'.

Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop on Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF, the initial proposal is here<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals> ... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be 'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you or someone else from APrIGF can tell me..

Best , parminder

With best regards,
Anja


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: APrIGF Secretariat <sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
To: announce at aprigf.asia<mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>



Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
APrIGF Macao 2015
30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015
Sands Cotai Central, Macao
http://2015.rigf.asia<http://aprigf.asia/>

Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals

With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop proposals and their request for a further deadline extension. To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for community members to fully develop their workshop proposals.

We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.

There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the extended period.

Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 11 Mar 2015 (Wed) [Extended to 7 Apr (Tue)]

Online Submission Form: (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)

If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.

If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia<mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in subscription request.

We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for more information.

Best Regards,
Secretariat of APrIGF
http://www.aprigf.asia<http://www.dot.asia/>
_______________________________________________




_______________________________________________
Rigf_discuss mailing list
Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org<mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss




--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150402/c3348e92/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Thu Apr  2 13:57:01 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:57:01 +0000
Subject: [governance] On the legitimacy of civil-society-only meetings,
 e.g. ISF (was Re: APrIGF Macao...)
In-Reply-To: <20150402094950.62038db8@quill>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
 <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
 <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <20150402094950.62038db8@quill>
Message-ID: <D143A32C.3C8CF%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>

Hi Norbert.

Just two quick points.

>I'm going to address the above question slightly outside of its original
context,
Ok, no response is needed from me then because the context is important.


>In my view, questioning the legitimacy of holding civil-society-only
meetings for purposes of discussion and strategizing and seeking to
build momentum within civil society for proposed public interest
oriented agendas is like questioning the legitimacy of the desire of
businesses to be profitable, or questioning the legitimacy of the desire
of governments to fund themselves through taxes.

I hope you do not take offence but an analogy is not an argument. See the
first page of
https://www.google.com.sg/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF
-8#q=analogy%20is%20not%20an%20argument


Regards,
Ang Peng Hwa





On 2/4/15 3:49 pm, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:44:56 +0000
>"Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote:
>
>> If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the
>> importance of a multistakeholder model
>> http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a
>> civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?
>
>Actually the World Economic Forum (WEF) has for quite some time now been
>a highly influential proponent of multistakeholderism, and if my
>current understanding of the history of multistakeholderism and its
>currently-dominant ideology is correct, the WEF even deserves to be
>credited as being one of the main inventors of that ideology.
>
>I'm going to address the above question slightly outside of its original
>context, since it was asked in the context of an IGF workshop proposal,
>for which the implied claim of that proposed workshop being a
>³civil-society-only² meeting is simply false.
>
>Independently of that context, I think that it is important to address
>this questioning of the legitimacy of civil society only meetings. For
>example, the Internet Social Forum itself (for which I am among the
>proponents) is in fact intended to be a ³civil society only² meeting
>(specifically in the sense of the World Social Forum participation
>criteria).
>
>In my view, questioning the legitimacy of holding civil-society-only
>meetings for purposes of discussion and strategizing and seeking to
>build momentum within civil society for proposed public interest
>oriented agendas is like questioning the legitimacy of the desire of
>businesses to be profitable, or questioning the legitimacy of the desire
>of governments to fund themselves through taxes.
>
>I find it quite noteworthy that an ideology of multistakeholderism has
>brought us to the point where the legitimacy of quite central kinds of
>civil society processes are now being called into question.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>P.S. For the benefit of any newcomers to this debate:
>IGF= Internet Governance Forum, http://intgovforum.org
>ISF= Internet Social Forum, http://InternetSocialForum.net

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  2 15:06:52 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 21:06:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] On the legitimacy of civil-society-only meetings,
 e.g. ISF (was Re: APrIGF Macao...)
In-Reply-To: <D143A32C.3C8CF%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
	<618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
	<CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
	<551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net>
	<D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<20150402094950.62038db8@quill>
	<D143A32C.3C8CF%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <20150402210652.3a092b02@quill>

On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:57:01 +0000
"Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote,
in response to a posting from me:

> >I'm going to address the above question slightly outside of its
> >original context,
> Ok, no response is needed from me then because the context is
> important.

Context is always important. However your posting was not clear on
whether you meant your pointed question *only* in reference to the
specific context of the previous discussion, or more generally. And
this still hasn't been clarified.

Therefore, I'd like to ask directly, in relation to the fact that you
posted, “If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the
importance of a multistakeholder model 
http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a
civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?”:

Do you view this point about the WEF as being applicable only in
reference to "workshops" in IGF / regional IGF contexts, or more
broadly?

And specifically, do you see a civil-society-only stand-alone forum
such as the proposed Internet Social Forum as unquestionably
legitimate, or do you see that point about the WEF as being relevant
to questioning legitimacy of the Internet Social Forum?

>> In my view, questioning the legitimacy of holding civil-society-only
>> meetings for purposes of discussion and strategizing and seeking to
>> build momentum within civil society for proposed public interest
>> oriented agendas is like questioning the legitimacy of the desire of
>> businesses to be profitable, or questioning the legitimacy of the
>> desire of governments to fund themselves through taxes.
> 
> I hope you do not take offence but an analogy is not an argument.

Of course it isn't. But if it should happen that someone expresses
doubts about that analogy being a quite appropriate one, I will be
happy to defend my view with arguments.

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 dan.oppermann at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 18:08:13 2015
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 19:08:13 -0300
Subject: [governance] CFP Internet Governance Symposium, Brazil
Message-ID: <551DBDCD.8000502@gmail.com>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear all,

As the deadline for GigaNet's Internet Governance symposium in João
Pessoa (Brazil) is approaching I would like to send a reminder regarding
our call for proposals. The CFP is attached to this mail, the deadline
for proposals is 15 April 2015.

Thanks!

Best
Daniel




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVHb3NAAoJEH/3W7QjgHJNHGwIAKppKK4aUouwKkdvbEXyiZFa
2vmKe9h+0tf75QjsrcOGnU085/VbO6HEPZmVwez/U1YTRp3prik7GJ3WuciwGHKy
mSpvYQUviULDdsn3BIZiuLN1yAFmDXNMPCDjswlROhrPGWPLE+DQCH+QI4rNvbks
NQegC06Hx2y4gSfch1ZUL6lA8ZNE0Os/yZ+R8PmZPVGR0vmkjeECxzouUkPSK1zE
ZHsgKJ4oZvSLgYoaXjX+W500eUnb8OAdvLjsgFcWf28Z/5vOwarbyDuRMhrys5N3
H2iY93tCO3vtGM1ndTQ5nELTqtun3dJv/GRIZc8A8T0/9c28GotE1FzUfG2axYI=
=5UWj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: call_for_proposals_GigaNet_2015.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 81603 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150402/8544231c/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Apr  2 19:53:58 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:53:58 +1100
Subject: [governance] Opening Session @ the Global Conference on
 Cyberspace - thoughts welcome
In-Reply-To: <CAE1T72TCg-mEAiDJbyLErxysmc+D98q0T2eTEGxPE=xA9jCFEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh117w=fAZ48vvDcz-9qHDeLKNE1_r1yYxz=zW_whGr0jhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE1T72TCg-mEAiDJbyLErxysmc+D98q0T2eTEGxPE=xA9jCFEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <811F0D75358442FDA26CF753FFCAE627@Toshiba>

Hi Devon,

I think the debate can and will evolve from the suggestion that “security” and human rights – in particular the right to privacy – need to in some way work against each other. While some governments still believe this is the case, many others now appear to have moved on from this.

A parallel might be to compare the great “security” we would have in society if there was a policeman permanently stationed on every street corner. I’m sure it would reduce crime, but would it create the sort of society we want to live in? I don’t think so; in fact we have a term for that sort of society, it is called a police state. And may I suggest that various forms of mass surveillance being suggested as necessary by some security groups might be heading in this direction, and are a step too far. Increasingly governments are recognising this.

I believe the early draft Chair’s statement for this conference will be released soon to civil society lists, for inputs into a civil society response to this draft. But having just had a sneak preview of the document, I was generally pleased with the strength of the suggested text on privacy and human rights, which begins with “the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts”. But there is a long way to go and there may be attempts to water down these sections. 

But yes, I do believe that this matter is likely to be a key issue at the conference, and we should raise our voices to talk about the sort of society we would wish to live in.

Ian Peter



From: Devon Blake 
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 3:36 AM
To: Nnenna Nwakanma ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Cc: Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; members 
Subject: Re: [governance] Opening Session @ the Global Conference on Cyberspace - thoughts welcome

I might be a bit out of touch but there is a conundrum between the level of individual freedom and security...security is being able to uniquely identify every user of the internet, and  have the capacity to mitigate against illegal or unsanctioned use... freedom here relates to the highest concepts of human rights...and we can list them...if we can find seven interrelated principles of human rights...and balance them against the character of each user...then we would have set the foundation for focused dialog on freedom vs security.
Devon

On Apr 2, 2015 3:30 AM, "Nnenna Nwakanma" <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

  Dear all,


  If all goes as planned, I will be at the opening panel on the morning of April 16th.  If you have any thoughts you would like me "not to forget", please feel free to share.  I have pasted the blurb, including the questions below.  Kindly note the following:

    1.. Because I only arrive on the 15th, I will be missing the Civil Society pre-event. So apologies upfront. 
    2.. I will try, to the measure possible to represent Civil Society views, but I do not and will not pretend to be representing anybody. 
    3.. I neither have the energy, time, nor bandwidth to engage in any debates, especially the type that seeks to lead nowhere, that has become the signature of some CS spaces. 
    4.. Feel free to mail nnenna at webfoundation directly if that is the best option for you.
  ==


  Opening session
  Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, will open the conference, followed by an introduction by Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, host of the GCCS. The conference will start with a strategic discussion among representatives of all stakeholders on the most important current developments in cyberspace. A panel consisting of high-level government officials and private sector and civil society leaders will sketch the main opportunities, dilemmas and challenges facing the further evolution of the internet. All main issues of the conference will be touched upon: internet governance and multistakeholder cooperation, freedom and privacy online, the digital divide, the internet as enabler for social and economic development, cyber security and cybercrime. The panel will address questions such as:

    a.. How should we balance freedom, security and economic development and innovation in cyberspace? 
    b.. How do we guarantee an open, free and secure internet? 
    c.. What are the responsibilities of the various stakeholders in cyberspace, e.g.: what  role should governments vis a vis the private sector play in protecting privacy online? 
    d.. How can we improve cooperation between governments, private sector and civil society in cyber-related matters? 
    e.. How can we maintain and improve trust by consumers in the internet? 
    f.. How can we stimulate research and development, and interdisciplinary academic cooperation in order to strengthen cyberspace?
  The panel will be followed by ministerial statements.

  Panelists:

    a.. Mireille Ballestrazzi, President of Interpol  
    b.. Vint Cerf, Vice-President of Google 
    c.. Nnenna Nwakanma, World Wide Web Foundation 
    d.. Fadi Chehadé, CEO ICANN 
    e.. Yurie Ito, Director of Global Coordination Division for the JPCERT/CC 





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

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

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




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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150403/ee0b743c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  3 01:24:29 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 10:54:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] New Deputy Secretary-General at UNCTAD
In-Reply-To: <674A4D2F-C911-4A6E-A924-833D9A3FA528@consensus.pro>
References: <674A4D2F-C911-4A6E-A924-833D9A3FA528@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <551E240D.5050108@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 02 April 2015 10:39 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> For those of you who follow the work of the UN Conference on Trade and
> Development (UNCTAD) especially the work of the CSTD related to WSIS -
> it has a new Deputy Secretary-General, Joakim Reiter of Sweden
> <http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=967&Sitemap_x0020_Taxonomy=UNCTAD%20Home;#14;%23OSG>.
>  (For those who don't know UNCTAD is to developing countries as OECD
> is to the developed world).

If  so, then would you agree that like the OECD, UNCTAD should have a
committee on digital economy policy as well, and with a rather expanded
mandate, beyond strictly economic issues, as the the OECD's Committee on
Digital Economy Policy has? Especially since unlike OECD, which
represents only the richest nations, UNCTAD has represenation from all
countries, including those developing and least developed, and civil
society should be most focussing on interests and representation of the
marginalised groups and people.

Thanks.

parminder

>
> For those of us active in trade policy policy Joakim is a well-known
> and very well-liked and respected person; he's the former Swedish WTO
> Ambassador and Sweden's Geneva-based WSIS and Internet Governance
> policy person reported to him and now reports to his successor.
>
> I think we'll find that UNCTAD becomes a more vibrant and engaged
> organisation - I can tell you from personal experience that Joakim
> personally is committed to policies that help real people, and one of
> his favourite phrases is "In Geneva there are people who make a point,
> and there are people who make a difference." - he's definitely in the
> latter camp. As WTO Ambassador he was a strong proponent of the
> Internet's power to create opportunity and reduce barriers
> irrespective of geography, and also passionate about the importance of
> freedom of expression and speech who was very forthright himself and
> empowered those who worked for him to do the same. 
>
> You can follow him on Twitter @UNCTADReiter - he actually tweeted on
> his first day on the job, which may well be the first time a DSG-level
> person has ever done that ;)
>
> -- 
> Regards,
>  
> Nick 
> Tel: +41 (24) 565 85 00
> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
> email: nashton at consensus.pro <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>
> GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com <mailto:nashtonhart at gmail.com>
> PGP: 6995293D
> Fingerprint: 9794  3DC C 8F 27 9 BF8  3105  298 1 96 FA F 538  6995  293 D
> Skype: nashtonhart
>
> “Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the
> imagination and life to everything.”  - Plato
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150403/18fe8a17/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  3 02:36:04 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 12:06:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BIsf=5D_Fwd=3A_=5Balai-amlat-en?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=5D_A_Social_Forum_to_build_a_people=E2=80=99s_Internet?=
In-Reply-To: <551DBD99.5030907@alainet.org>
References: <551DBD99.5030907@alainet.org>
Message-ID: <551E34D4.1020704@itforchange.net>

Please see below, and enclosed in the 'Tunis Call for a People's
Internet' given and approved at various meetings, including the workshop
on an Internet Social Forum, at the recently concluded World Social
Forum... parminder

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[Isf] Fwd: [alai-amlat-en] A Social Forum to build a people’s
Internet
Date: 	Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:07:21 -0500
From: 	Sally Burch - ALAI <sburch at alainet.org>
To: 	isf at internetsocialforum.net



(Spanish version / versión español:
http://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/168590)

A Social Forum to build a people’s Internet

ALAI

ALAI AMLAT-en, 02/04/2015.- While social movements and actors worldwide
have integrated the Internet and cyberspace as a key dimension of their
practices of work, organization and coordination, their inclusion as a
topic of political and strategic debate has been, up to now, relatively
marginal; an instrumental view of the Internet still predominates.  At
most, the debate is taking place in the realm of communications, when in
fact it is also about a new dimension of economics, politics, culture
and the social order, with huge implications for power rearrangements
and for the future of democracy itself.
 
The proposal to organize a Thematic Social Forum about the Internet,
presented at the World Social Forum 2015, which recently ended in Tunis
(24-29 March), seeks to trace a path to expand this vision, while
opening a debate towards building a common agenda on these issues.
 
The initiative, which already has close to a hundred organizations
signed on, and received explicit support in several spaces of the WSF,
states in its presentation text(1) that: "... we are alarmed to see how
both our private and public spaces are being co-opted and controlled for
private gain; how private corporations are carving the public Internet
into walled spaces; how our personal data is being manipulated and
proprietised; how a global surveillance society is emerging, with little
or no privacy; how information on the Internet is being arbitrarily
censored, and people's right to communicate curtailed; and, how the
Internet is being militarised. Meanwhile, decision-making on public
policy matters relating to the Internet remains dangerously removed from
the mechanisms of democratic governance."
 
It also proposes that the Internet Social Forum (ISF) should be a space
to discuss "the Internet we want and how to build it", that is, an
Internet for the people; indeed, this is urgent "before the knowledge
and access-to-information revolution is irretrievably captured by
corporate interests and security agencies that will deepen the nexus of
corruption between politics and money."
 
But, why would an Internet Social Forum be the best option? The UN World
Summit on the Information Society (2003 and 2005), where civil society
organizations agreed on a vision and proposals focused on communication
rights(2), defined a "multistakeholder" model for the global follow-up
entities (ie involving governments, private sector and civil society).
In practice, this has inhibited the creation of a specific space to
develop discourse and a framework for proposals clearly located within
an anti-neoliberal vision, able to criticize and generate resistance to
the growing monopoly control over Internet of the big transnational
corporations (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon and others). The World
Social Forum appears an ideal space to do so.
 
Moreover, the WSF facilitates convergence with other social struggles
and action agendas: among others, in Tunis the ISF initiative entered
into dialogue with the convergence of resistance to transnational
corporations and the convergence on the right to communicate. The
International Council of the WSF is including the ISF in its calendar of
activities for next year.
 
In Tunis, the organizing bodies of the workshop on "Organizing an
Internet Social Forum - A call to occupy Internet" extended the
invitation to other organizations that share the WSF Charter of
Principles (3) to join the initiative, under the modality of an open and
democratic space. Among the first things to consider will be the
definition of the place, date and mode of organization of the ISF.

(1)  http://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/168669
(2)  https://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration-es.pdf
(3)  http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2

 
URL of this article:  http://alainet.org/en/articulo/168670


More information: http://alainet.org/index.phtml.en
RSS: http://alainet.org/rss.phtml
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ALAIinfo

We invite you to sustain ALAI's work.
Contributions: http://alainet.org/donaciones.php
______________________________________
Agencia Latinoamericana de Informacion
email: info at alainet.org

Subscriptions: http://listas.alainet.org/listas/subscribe/alai-amlat-en
Unsubscribe: http://listas.alainet.org/listas/signoff/alai-amlatina-en








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150403/07b0afc7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Isf mailing list
Isf at internetsocialforum.net
http://internetsocialforum.net/mailman/listinfo/isf_internetsocialforum.net
The current organisational and individual participants of the ISF elist can be seen at http://www.internetsocialforum.net/?q=Participants

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Tunis Call.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 51405 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150403/07b0afc7/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Apr  3 03:23:36 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 12:53:36 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <D143A10F.3C8BD%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia> <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com> <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net> <D143A10F.3C8BD%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <551E3FF8.6090404@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 02 April 2015 11:20 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Hi Parminder.
>
> Bunch of meetings whole day ending with a minor emergency that had to
> be attended to because it’s a holiday tomorrow.

Hope everything is well.
>
> I’m glad I had the facts wrong in the right places. (You know what I
> mean.)
>
> You had the question:
> >Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you
> if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social
> Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also
> what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals
> to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective’. 
>
> I’m not in the MAG and I’m only one voice in the APrIGF selection
> committee.

Would still have like have liked your clarification about the
implications of having to present issues with ' a multistakeholder
perspective'. Most members of the committee must be here, and anyone can
clarify it to me..
>
> >Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .
> The devil is in the detail. How does one define public interest?

Sure. There is a few centuries of work of political science and how to
define and determine public interest - which is still always a project
in the works. My problem is, you seem to be unsure of 'how to define
public interest' but, at the same time,  happy to easily and
unproblematically use the term 'multistakeholder perspective'. And not
even clarify it when I ask .... Why dont similar doubts occur in your
mind when you make providing such a MS perspective as a condition for
APrIGF workshops? Certainly, there is much less known or written (in
fact, almost, nothing) on what is a 'multistakeholder perspective'.

So, my problem here is relative - why public interest is unclear but
'multistakeholder perspective is presumably clear.

Do you see here almost an exact parallel to the issue which came up
during the recent UNESCO meeting about multistakeholderism versus
democracy - where multistakeholderism was presumed to be a clear and
well defined term, with no 'baggage' and thus included in the text,
while 'democracy' was seen to be unclear and 'carrying baggage', and
rejected.

Shows how deep, well-formed and portent this current political problem
of democracy/ public interest versus the new political form of
multistakholderism is, and the latter's suspiciously post-democratic
nature. I would especially draw the attention of all those who would
otherwise be really committed to democracy, but may miss the depth and
meaningfulness of the issue, for instance as may have happened during
the discussions about the UNESCO document, the WEF-NMI initiative, and
so on...

We may ignore this major emerging political fault-line, of historical
significance, only at our and our democratic societies' peril.

parminder

>
> Had a long day.
>
> Good night.
>
> Regards, 
> Peng Hwa
>
> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 8:09 pm
> To: Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>,
> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Anja Kovacs
> <anja at internetdemocracy.in <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>,
> "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended
> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your
> Workshop Proposals
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 01 April 2015 04:14 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>> Hi Parminder.
>>
>> I went to the IGF page and searched for your proposal. I’m surprised
>> that the entire group of organisers consists of civil society players
>> only.
>
> Hi Peng Hwa
>
> Perhaps you missed noting that we have entered the proposal not as a
> regular IGF workshop but under 'others' - calling it as an 'outreach
> event'. And out reach event for any initiative is obviously done by
> those associated with organising that event, here, the Internet Social
> Forum, which are all civil society organisations.  The Internet Social
> Forum is to be a thematic forum under the World Social Forum rubric.
> The World Social Forum in fact only allows civil society groups to
> participate and not businesses or government. Please see this link for
> WSF's criteria of paticipation . Now if you want to take up issues
> with the WSF and its criteria of participation, that is a different
> thing - there are much better worthies to defend it than I.
>
> BTW, among the organisers are both civil society and technical
> community groups, and it has been made clear in the past that it is
> not necessary to have stakeholders as co- organisers of an IGF workshop.
>
>  
>>
>> The online proposal form has a button that allows one to ask for help
>> if one has difficulty getting stakeholder participation. Your
>> proposal does not have that request. I presume it means that you are
>> not seeking inputs from government or the private sector.
>
> You can conflating organisers and participants. If you look at the
> tentative panel, you will find a wide variety of stakeholders.
>>
>> Back in 2010, when we organised the first APrIGF, you and I had a
>> couple of side chats during the meeting in HK and you gave some
>> critical inputs that, in the long run, strengthened the meeting. One
>> of the criticisms was that we had no government representation on the MSG
>
> As far as I remember, both at the HK meeting, and later in exchanges
> on this list, my main point was to involve the UN regional commission
> of Asia Pacific.
>
>> (multistakeholder steering group; acronym cunningly chosen because it
>> resembles flavouring originating in Asia). There was a bit of finger
>> wagging by you even then and I explained to you that we had tried but
>> no government was stepping up. Since then, we have seen increasing
>> government involvement with the APrIGF. Fast forward to 2014 and the
>> Indian government played a major part in the APrIGF in Delhi. I don’t
>> know if you played a part in that but your critique in 2010 was
>> helpful in prodding us to get government on board. In the coming
>> Macao meeting, they are involved in sponsorships as well.
>>
>> So now, seeing a proposal from you where only civil society is
>> speaker and audience is puzzling. I
>
> you are wrong on your facts .
>
>> have battle scars from being ejected at meetings by government
>> officials between the two WSISs. They are so rare these days I wear
>> them as a badge of honour.
>>
>> So these are my questions that come top of my head.
>>
>>  1. If civil society can organise a session where no government or
>>     business organisation is invited, would it be acceptable if
>>     governments and business organise their own meetings among
>>     themselves?
>>
>
> Where did you read that no gov or business is invited? Further, we
> have a variety of stakeholders on the panel as well. Yes, no business
> at present. I would love to get a small developing country business
> but can never find one. If you know anyone please do refer to me.
>
>>  1. If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the importance of
>>     a multistakeholder
>>     model http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society,
>>     would not a civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?
>>
> I have pretty good idea about what WEF recognises and what it does
> not, and to what purpose. (BTW, do read their Global Redesign
> Initiative, and their vision of the future of governance. But if you
> cant read it all, see a short critique in this article
> <http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/cover02.htm> , go to
> the  box in the article on 'From NetMundial to the WEF'.) The workshop
> on the Internet Social Forum at the IGF is of course not only civil
> society. As for your objection to the proposed Internet Social Forum
> itself being only civil society, you will need to engage with the
> World Social Forum, at whose 2015 meeting last week about 40,000
> people congregated from the world over. The next WSF is probably in
> Canada, and there will curely be an Internet Social Forum event there.
> You are welcome to come.
>
> Below are the current top news about the 2015 WSF meeting. (You may
> also know that the WSF - read charter here
> <http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2>-
> was called in direct opposition to the WEF, so obviously a lots of
> people were never too happy with WEF's multistakeholderism and
> inclusiveness !)
>
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/mar/23/world-social-forum-tunis-activists-united-against-global-power-grab
> http://www.equaltimes.org/2015-a-key-year-for-world-social#.VRvcts3SUyo
> http://cadtm.org/Declaration-of-the-Assembly-of,11452
> http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/27/african_economist_samir_amin_on_the
>
> Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you
> if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social
> Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also
> what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals
> to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective'.
> Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .
>
> Regards
> parminder
>
>> Regards, 
>> Peng Hwa
>>
>> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
>> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:49 pm
>> To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in
>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, IGC
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended
>> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your
>> Workshop Proposals
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for
>>> the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For
>>> those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a
>>> proposal!
>>
>> Hi Anja
>>
>> I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should
>> present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder
>> perspective".
>>
>> For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled
>> 'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one
>> would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in
>> this area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test
>> of 'incorporating a MS perspective'.
>>
>> Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop
>> on Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF,
>> the initial proposal is here
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals>
>> ... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be
>> 'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you
>> or someone else from APrIGF can tell me..
>>
>> Best , parminder
>>>
>>> With best regards,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *APrIGF Secretariat* <sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
>>> Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
>>> Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao
>>> 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
>>> To: announce at aprigf.asia <mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum*
>>> *APrIGF Macao 2015*
>>> *30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015*
>>> *Sands Cotai Central, Macao*
>>> http://2015.rigf.asia <http://aprigf.asia/>
>>>
>>> *Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals*
>>>
>>> With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just
>>> concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the
>>> overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop
>>> proposals and their request for a further deadline extension.
>>> To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more
>>> stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further
>>> extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for
>>> community members to fully develop their workshop proposals.
>>>
>>> We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions
>>> which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner,
>>> incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of
>>> stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall
>>> promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.
>>>
>>> There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly
>>> encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the
>>> extended period.
>>>
>>> *Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: *11 Mar 2015
>>> (Wed) *[Extended to 7 Apr (Tue)]*
>>>
>>> *Online Submission
>>> Form:* (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)
>>>
>>> If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the
>>> secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.
>>>
>>> *
>>> If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF
>>> and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing
>>> list discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in
>>> subscription request.
>>>
>>> We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a
>>> sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for
>>> more information.
>>> *
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Secretariat of APrIGF
>>> http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.dot.asia/>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rigf_discuss mailing list
>>> Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org <mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
>>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://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
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s)
>> named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use,
>> or disclose its contents.
>> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. 
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150403/8d7c4421/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Fri Apr  3 04:08:50 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:08:50 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <551E3FF8.6090404@itforchange.net>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
 <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
 <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net> <D143A10F.3C8BD%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <551E3FF8.6090404@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D1446A1D.3C93E%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>

>Hope everything is well.
Yes, all’s well. Thanks. Potential seven-figure fine but most likely averted.

>Would still have like have liked your clarification about the implications of having to present issues with ' a multistakeholder perspective'. Most members of the committee must be here, and anyone can clarify it to me.

I thought the fact that because you raised the issue, the answer suggested itself: offering perspectives of the three stakeholders of public, private and civil society sectors.


>So, my problem here is relative - why public interest is unclear but 'multistakeholder perspective is presumably clear.
It’s quite easy to define the latter but not the former.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Friday, 3 April 2015 3:23 pm
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals



On Thursday 02 April 2015 11:20 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
Hi Parminder.

Bunch of meetings whole day ending with a minor emergency that had to be attended to because it’s a holiday tomorrow.

Hope everything is well.

I’m glad I had the facts wrong in the right places. (You know what I mean.)

You had the question:
>Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective’.

I’m not in the MAG and I’m only one voice in the APrIGF selection committee.

Would still have like have liked your clarification about the implications of having to present issues with ' a multistakeholder perspective'. Most members of the committee must be here, and anyone can clarify it to me..

>Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .
The devil is in the detail. How does one define public interest?

Sure. There is a few centuries of work of political science and how to define and determine public interest - which is still always a project in the works. My problem is, you seem to be unsure of 'how to define public interest' but, at the same time,  happy to easily and unproblematically use the term 'multistakeholder perspective'. And not even clarify it when I ask .... Why dont similar doubts occur in your mind when you make providing such a MS perspective as a condition for APrIGF workshops? Certainly, there is much less known or written (in fact, almost, nothing) on what is a 'multistakeholder perspective'.

So, my problem here is relative - why public interest is unclear but 'multistakeholder perspective is presumably clear.

Do you see here almost an exact parallel to the issue which came up during the recent UNESCO meeting about multistakeholderism versus democracy - where multistakeholderism was presumed to be a clear and well defined term, with no 'baggage' and thus included in the text, while 'democracy' was seen to be unclear and 'carrying baggage', and rejected.

Shows how deep, well-formed and portent this current political problem of democracy/ public interest versus the new political form of multistakholderism is, and the latter's suspiciously post-democratic nature. I would especially draw the attention of all those who would otherwise be really committed to democracy, but may miss the depth and meaningfulness of the issue, for instance as may have happened during the discussions about the UNESCO document, the WEF-NMI initiative, and so on...

We may ignore this major emerging political fault-line, of historical significance, only at our and our democratic societies' peril.

parminder


Had a long day.

Good night.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 8:09 pm
To: Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals



On Wednesday 01 April 2015 04:14 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
Hi Parminder.

I went to the IGF page and searched for your proposal. I’m surprised that the entire group of organisers consists of civil society players only.

Hi Peng Hwa

Perhaps you missed noting that we have entered the proposal not as a regular IGF workshop but under 'others' - calling it as an 'outreach event'. And out reach event for any initiative is obviously done by those associated with organising that event, here, the Internet Social Forum, which are all civil society organisations.  The Internet Social Forum is to be a thematic forum under the World Social Forum rubric. The World Social Forum in fact only allows civil society groups to participate and not businesses or government. Please see this link for WSF's criteria of paticipation . Now if you want to take up issues with the WSF and its criteria of participation, that is a different thing - there are much better worthies to defend it than I.

BTW, among the organisers are both civil society and technical community groups, and it has been made clear in the past that it is not necessary to have stakeholders as co- organisers of an IGF workshop.



The online proposal form has a button that allows one to ask for help if one has difficulty getting stakeholder participation. Your proposal does not have that request. I presume it means that you are not seeking inputs from government or the private sector.

You can conflating organisers and participants. If you look at the tentative panel, you will find a wide variety of stakeholders.

Back in 2010, when we organised the first APrIGF, you and I had a couple of side chats during the meeting in HK and you gave some critical inputs that, in the long run, strengthened the meeting. One of the criticisms was that we had no government representation on the MSG

As far as I remember, both at the HK meeting, and later in exchanges on this list, my main point was to involve the UN regional commission of Asia Pacific.

(multistakeholder steering group; acronym cunningly chosen because it resembles flavouring originating in Asia). There was a bit of finger wagging by you even then and I explained to you that we had tried but no government was stepping up. Since then, we have seen increasing government involvement with the APrIGF. Fast forward to 2014 and the Indian government played a major part in the APrIGF in Delhi. I don’t know if you played a part in that but your critique in 2010 was helpful in prodding us to get government on board. In the coming Macao meeting, they are involved in sponsorships as well.

So now, seeing a proposal from you where only civil society is speaker and audience is puzzling. I

you are wrong on your facts .

have battle scars from being ejected at meetings by government officials between the two WSISs. They are so rare these days I wear them as a badge of honour.

So these are my questions that come top of my head.

  1.  If civil society can organise a session where no government or business organisation is invited, would it be acceptable if governments and business organise their own meetings among themselves?

Where did you read that no gov or business is invited? Further, we have a variety of stakeholders on the panel as well. Yes, no business at present. I would love to get a small developing country business but can never find one. If you know anyone please do refer to me.


  1.  If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the importance of a multistakeholder model http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?

I have pretty good idea about what WEF recognises and what it does not, and to what purpose. (BTW, do read their Global Redesign Initiative, and their vision of the future of governance. But if you cant read it all, see a short critique in this article<http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/cover02.htm> , go to the  box in the article on 'From NetMundial to the WEF'.) The workshop on the Internet Social Forum at the IGF is of course not only civil society. As for your objection to the proposed Internet Social Forum itself being only civil society, you will need to engage with the World Social Forum, at whose 2015 meeting last week about 40,000 people congregated from the world over. The next WSF is probably in Canada, and there will curely be an Internet Social Forum event there. You are welcome to come.

Below are the current top news about the 2015 WSF meeting. (You may also know that the WSF - read charter here <http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2> - was called in direct opposition to the WEF, so obviously a lots of people were never too happy with WEF's multistakeholderism and inclusiveness !)


http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/mar/23/world-social-forum-tunis-activists-united-against-global-power-grab
http://www.equaltimes.org/2015-a-key-year-for-world-social#.VRvcts3SUyo
http://cadtm.org/Declaration-of-the-Assembly-of,11452
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/27/african_economist_samir_amin_on_the

Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective'. Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .

Regards
parminder

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:49 pm
To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals


On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Dear all,

I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a proposal!

Hi Anja

I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective".

For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled 'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in this area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test of 'incorporating a MS perspective'.

Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop on Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF, the initial proposal is here<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals> ... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be 'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you or someone else from APrIGF can tell me..

Best , parminder

With best regards,
Anja


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: APrIGF Secretariat <sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
To: announce at aprigf.asia<mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>



Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
APrIGF Macao 2015
30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015
Sands Cotai Central, Macao
http://2015.rigf.asia<http://aprigf.asia/>

Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals

With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop proposals and their request for a further deadline extension. To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for community members to fully develop their workshop proposals.

We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.

There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the extended period.

Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 11 Mar 2015 (Wed) [Extended to 7 Apr (Tue)]

Online Submission Form: (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)

If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.

If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia<mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in subscription request.

We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for more information.

Best Regards,
Secretariat of APrIGF
http://www.aprigf.asia<http://www.dot.asia/>
_______________________________________________




_______________________________________________
Rigf_discuss mailing list
Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org<mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss




--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.




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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150403/c146be9a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Fri Apr  3 04:18:20 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:18:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] On the legitimacy of civil-society-only meetings,
 e.g. ISF (was Re: APrIGF Macao...)
In-Reply-To: <20150402210652.3a092b02@quill>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
 <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
 <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <20150402094950.62038db8@quill> <D143A32C.3C8CF%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <20150402210652.3a092b02@quill>
Message-ID: <D1446BE8.3C94D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>

Hi Norbert.

>Therefore, I'd like to ask directly, in relation to the fact that you
posted, ³If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the
importance of a multistakeholder model
http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a
civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?²:

>Do you view this point about the WEF as being applicable only in
reference to "workshops" in IGF / regional IGF contexts, or more
broadly?

Given the context, I was talking only about the IGF/regional IGF contexts.


>And specifically, do you see a civil-society-only stand-alone forum
such as the proposed Internet Social Forum as unquestionably
legitimate, or do you see that point about the WEF as being relevant
to questioning legitimacy of the Internet Social Forum?


Just as governments can organise governments-only meetings and business
can organise business-only meetings, so civil society can organise civil
society-only meetings. Legitimacy of any one of these meeting is not the
question to ask.

Regards,
Peng Hwa





On 3/4/15 3:06 am, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:57:01 +0000
>"Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote,
>in response to a posting from me:
>
>> >I'm going to address the above question slightly outside of its
>> >original context,
>> Ok, no response is needed from me then because the context is
>> important.
>
>Context is always important. However your posting was not clear on
>whether you meant your pointed question *only* in reference to the
>specific context of the previous discussion, or more generally. And
>this still hasn't been clarified.
>
>Therefore, I'd like to ask directly, in relation to the fact that you
>posted, ³If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the
>importance of a multistakeholder model
>http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a
>civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?²:
>
>Do you view this point about the WEF as being applicable only in
>reference to "workshops" in IGF / regional IGF contexts, or more
>broadly?
>
>And specifically, do you see a civil-society-only stand-alone forum
>such as the proposed Internet Social Forum as unquestionably
>legitimate, or do you see that point about the WEF as being relevant
>to questioning legitimacy of the Internet Social Forum?
>
>>> In my view, questioning the legitimacy of holding civil-society-only
>>> meetings for purposes of discussion and strategizing and seeking to
>>> build momentum within civil society for proposed public interest
>>> oriented agendas is like questioning the legitimacy of the desire of
>>> businesses to be profitable, or questioning the legitimacy of the
>>> desire of governments to fund themselves through taxes.
>>
>> I hope you do not take offence but an analogy is not an argument.
>
>Of course it isn't. But if it should happen that someone expresses
>doubts about that analogy being a quite appropriate one, I will be
>happy to defend my view with arguments.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.

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

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Fri Apr  3 06:09:09 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:09:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <D1446A1D.3C93E%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
 <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net> <D143A10F.3C8BD%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <551E3FF8.6090404@itforchange.net> <D1446A1D.3C93E%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYo2Q=ii5U7NwLv9K=LtmH_z3XWMiCQ+XRnzMYRWa47brg@mail.gmail.com>

It's true that public interest has a variable geometry. In my mind it's
defined by a democratic decision within the relevant public.

As to multistakeholderism, it can certainly mean that discussions should
occur between various parties having some stakes in issues at hand (then,
what's new, it's been practiced for eons). But no more.

Decision making by so called consensus (i.e. no objection) may work in
exceptional conditions. Else rules are needed for handling persistent
disagreements.

Multistakeholderism pushed as a management model without decision making
rules is a variety of scam (aka multi-steak-holdup).
  .
Louis
- - -

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>
wrote:

>  >Hope everything is well.
> Yes, all's well. Thanks. Potential seven-figure fine but most likely
> averted.
>
>  >Would still have like have liked your clarification about the
> implications of having to present issues with ' a multistakeholder
> perspective'. Most members of the committee must be here, and anyone can
> clarify it to me.
>
>  I thought the fact that because you raised the issue, the answer
> suggested itself: offering perspectives of the three stakeholders of
> public, private and civil society sectors.
>
>
>  >So, my problem here is relative - why public interest is unclear but
> 'multistakeholder perspective is presumably clear.
> It's quite easy to define the latter but not the former.
>
>  Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
>   From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net>
> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net>
> Date: Friday, 3 April 2015 3:23 pm
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended
> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your
> Workshop Proposals
>
> [..]
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150403/d342c9d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 06:47:39 2015
From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 11:47:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] On the legitimacy of civil-society-only meetings,
 e.g. ISF (was Re: APrIGF Macao...)
In-Reply-To: <D1446BE8.3C94D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
 <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <20150402094950.62038db8@quill> <D143A32C.3C8CF%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <20150402210652.3a092b02@quill> <D1446BE8.3C94D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <CAPcSPKXuxcokTj4+LFKypwyeXP8atgv-aKOUaMC_M9szn_UOzQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

With my modest experience, I believe that we should not rule out the civil
society forum option. However, the contexts are so advanced that in most
countries the collaboration between the multi-actors works beautifully.

By cons, in most of our countries in Africa, regarding ICT, this approach
is constantly and intelligently dismissed by policymakers.

It then becomes sensible to entities of civil society to organize their own
forum like the IGF. This does not mean that the government and the private
sector are ignored. The recommendations of civil society generally serve as
a barometer, reference or indicator for policy makers. The private sector
is adapting to the behavior of the government.

But what is harder to accept, it is often the indifference of the UN
agencies and bilateral partners who are very familiar with these issues and
who, being present in the country, do not expect in terms of support financial
activities of entities of civil society engaged in this process.

The civil society forum on Internet governance is essential. With this in
mind, I also support and my colleagues CAFEC the social forum of the
internet.

The forum with the government and / or the private sector may not be
possible if the government or bilateral or multilateral partners engaged in
it.

For this reason I emphasized above that contexts are not the same and we
are facing a new paradigm as a major concern with CYBER CRIME IN
CYBERSPACE. Which constantly challenges the issue of trust, highlighting
the issue of cybersecurity.

2015-04-03 9:18 GMT+01:00 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>:

> Hi Norbert.
>
> >Therefore, I'd like to ask directly, in relation to the fact that you
> posted, ³If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the
> importance of a multistakeholder model
> http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a
> civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?²:
>
> >Do you view this point about the WEF as being applicable only in
> reference to "workshops" in IGF / regional IGF contexts, or more
> broadly?
>
> Given the context, I was talking only about the IGF/regional IGF contexts.
>
>
> >And specifically, do you see a civil-society-only stand-alone forum
> such as the proposed Internet Social Forum as unquestionably
> legitimate, or do you see that point about the WEF as being relevant
> to questioning legitimacy of the Internet Social Forum?
>
>
> Just as governments can organise governments-only meetings and business
> can organise business-only meetings, so civil society can organise civil
> society-only meetings. Legitimacy of any one of these meeting is not the
> question to ask.
>
> Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/4/15 3:06 am, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:57:01 +0000
> >"Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote,
> >in response to a posting from me:
> >
> >> >I'm going to address the above question slightly outside of its
> >> >original context,
> >> Ok, no response is needed from me then because the context is
> >> important.
> >
> >Context is always important. However your posting was not clear on
> >whether you meant your pointed question *only* in reference to the
> >specific context of the previous discussion, or more generally. And
> >this still hasn't been clarified.
> >
> >Therefore, I'd like to ask directly, in relation to the fact that you
> >posted, ³If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the
> >importance of a multistakeholder model
> >http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a
> >civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?²:
> >
> >Do you view this point about the WEF as being applicable only in
> >reference to "workshops" in IGF / regional IGF contexts, or more
> >broadly?
> >
> >And specifically, do you see a civil-society-only stand-alone forum
> >such as the proposed Internet Social Forum as unquestionably
> >legitimate, or do you see that point about the WEF as being relevant
> >to questioning legitimacy of the Internet Social Forum?
> >
> >>> In my view, questioning the legitimacy of holding civil-society-only
> >>> meetings for purposes of discussion and strategizing and seeking to
> >>> build momentum within civil society for proposed public interest
> >>> oriented agendas is like questioning the legitimacy of the desire of
> >>> businesses to be profitable, or questioning the legitimacy of the
> >>> desire of governments to fund themselves through taxes.
> >>
> >> I hope you do not take offence but an analogy is not an argument.
> >
> >Of course it isn't. But if it should happen that someone expresses
> >doubts about that analogy being a quite appropriate one, I will be
> >happy to defend my view with arguments.
> >
> >Greetings,
> >Norbert
>
> ________________________________
> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and
> may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose
> its contents.
> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150403/89289974/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  3 17:02:16 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 08:02:16 +1100
Subject: [governance] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for
 short time frame
Message-ID: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>

Dear friends,



[Apologies for cross-posting]



Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to comment on the consolidated response as per message below.



Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.











We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015. 



Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet. 



Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s Statement).



To submit your comments on the draft Chair’s Statement (HERE: http://tinyurl.com/lqp8knr), please complete this Google Form (link:http://goo.gl/forms/E72m3QTR1K) by COB Tuesday 7th April.



The consolidation of this input into a unified document to be presented to the Conference organisers will be coordinated by the GCCS2015 Advisory Board, which has been set up by the Conference organisers to help ensure the Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.



In case you are unable to provide input at this stage, a call for a second round of comments on the unified document will be circulated in the week of the Conference.



If you would rather contact us directly with your comments, please write to aditi at gp-digital.org, answering the following 4 questions on the text:



  1.. Sections of the text that you support being included in the final outcome document

  2.. Areas of the text which could be strengthened

  3.. Areas of the text that raise concerns

  4.. Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity



Feel free to share this call with your civil society networks.


 

Ian Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150404/3e5c49e4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 18:28:42 2015
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 03:28:42 +0500
Subject: [governance] US to impose sanctions on foreign cyber attackers
In-Reply-To: <E1YdhAr-0007wi-DN@igcaucus.org>
References: <CAHuaJtOC50v_UB5QOgSeH2_D0M5aJnmpWxD+QY0J+HVAo337Kg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1YdhAr-0007wi-DN@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtOOzPbcHBemUfDTJ4urKkHJzPiZBMwaOPScV=sfU_q0rQ@mail.gmail.com>

But this should be a larger debate beyond the remit of nation states that
involves the broader civil society and other stakeholders. These
technologies did not just appear on their own, they were developed by
individuals, groups, communities and companies and so forth. Why are we so
afraid to create a discourse and bridge the gaps opposed to the propaganda?
Why not raise and argue at the IGF and regional fora? Why not a dynamic
coalition on the issue?

On Thursday, 2 April 2015, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> Fouad,
>
> the problem is not that much what they do, but that they do it in order to
> accustom us to what they are going to do soon - by Sept. 30, 2015: i.e. to
> formally make ICANN the international law of the internet - and the FCC the
> cybersupreme court. The transition is from an US Executive Dominion to a
> colonny under US jursdiction (cf. TPP, TAFTA, etc.)
> Up to now, the only consideration for an alternative is my appeal (
> http://iuwg.net/index.php/Letter_to_Lawrence_E._Strickling,_Assistant_
> Secretary,_NTIA).
>
> RFC 2026 states: "In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of
> the dispute, and the communication of that decision to the parties
> involved, must be accomplished within a reasonable period of time." The
> delay in responding shows that they consider it carefully as it desserves.
> So far everything is on track. I expect that several "MYCANN Plugs-in" will
> be ready by Oct. 1st.
>
> jfc
>
>
> At 14:16 02/04/2015, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
>  How far will nations go with addressing the cyberattack threat?
>> Pakistan has a cybercrime bill in the making that treats such attacks
>> within its borders as treason and severe punishments while larger
>> powerful nations with global reach like the US are going to treat this
>> possibly with sanctions. Civil Society has so far been a back seat
>> audience on such contemporary security issues. There have been
>> academic interventions on such subjects but within the practitioner
>> and regulatory spaces, there hardly have been any alternative
>> approaches to seriously address such issue. May be some consideration
>> in future IGFs?
>>
>> FYI
>> Obama threatens foreign cyber attackers with sanctions
>> Warwick Ashford, Thursday 02 April 2015 09:45
>> Computer Weekly - CYBER SECURITY
>> http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500243644/Obama-
>> threatens-foreign-cyber-attackers-with-sanctions
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> Public Policy Analyst
>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> Content-Disposition: inline
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Public Policy Analyst
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150404/89765574/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  3 21:27:12 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:27:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies
 for short time frame
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5UJX7xO_8j8Ldzr2oratBPWytULY0BEmp5E6=m+ET-CQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Colleagues,
Can we encourage those of you who who wish to give input to do it as
individuals over the next 3 days, but also to share your ideas for
discussion on the list.
Devon has already brought up the issue of the balance between freedom and
security (in the thread *Opening Session @ the Global Conference on
Cyberspace - thoughts welcome* started by Nnenna)
Best wishes
Analia and Deirdre




-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150403/f067bcab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  4 04:00:26 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:30:26 +0530
Subject: [governance] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies
 for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>
References: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <551F9A1A.6010400@itforchange.net>

Ian/ All

The following are my comments on the Global Conference on CyberSpace
2015 <https://www.gccs2015.com/> and its outcome document
<http://tinyurl.com/lqp8knr>.

This conference is 4th in a series also known as the London process. It
was started by US and UK and involves key developed countries, in an
attempt to create a captured space to develop global Internet related
norms and principles. See for instance the about page
<https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015>which says, "The three
preceding Global Conferences on CyberSpace (in London, Budapest and
Seoul) established a set of principles on internet governance." The
effort is to shun and move away from globally democratic spaces like
those of the UN, which should be the legitimate places to develop global
IG principles, to spaces controlled by key Northern powers.

Further, this process is not 'really multi-stakeholder' as all the
documents in the preceding meetings have been prepared by the key
Northern powers, with little or no input from civil society, or from
other country governments - certainly far far from the much bandied
equal footing multistakeholderism. The highly controlled participation
of civil society in these meeting is mediated in a non transparent
manner through means and agencies that I will pass commenting on at present.

These Northern powers (US and its allies) controlled global governance
spaces - even as the same powers resist any attempts to undertake such
principles and norms development at the UN level - represent entrenching
of their hegemony over the world's affairs, and further the spectre of a
unipolar world, which is imperialistic (and neo-colonial) and neoliberal.

In the circumstances, the foremost thing that civil society in Internet
governance space has to decide and comment upon is about the
imperialist, hegemonic and non-democratic means of global norms and
policy development that is embodied in GCCS kind of processes (and also
in OECD's Internet policy processes). Does civil society condone the
London process, with the said attributes and motives? In a way, they
seem to already condone it by participating in it, but then perhaps
participation could be used to convey the message to the organisers what
we think about it. Is there any such plan? Or is the civil society
merely going to fawn about how good everything is, except perhaps - can
you change the comma in line 8, and maybe insert 5-6 more instances of
the word 'multistakeholderism', and, thanks, we are done.

My view is, civil society participants should give a clear message to
the organisers that global civil society does not approve to such
captured spaces for global norms development, and that such activity
should be moved to genuinely globally democratic venues, where all
countries participate at the same level, and where civil society groups
have a very strong participative role. We should in fact prepare and
deliver a written common statement to the meeting in this regard. I dont
see what else can and needs to be done about this conference and its
proposed outcome document, which merely seeks to foist on the world the
principles and mechanisms for a hegemonic unipolar world, controlled by
imperialist forces, pursuing a neoliberal ideology .

parminder

On Saturday 04 April 2015 02:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
>
>
> /[Apologies for cross-posting]/
>
> // 
>
> /Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil
> society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for
> very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our
> wider input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS
> response after getting your input. There will be another (again short)
> opportunity to comment on the consolidated response as per message below./
>
> // 
>
> /Governments and business interests will also be responding to the
> text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes.
> There are some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently
> (IMHO) that we need to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can
> suggest improvements. But please input within the time frame either by
> the form or the email address below./
>
> // 
>
> // 
>
> // 
>
> // 
>
> //
>
> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society
> input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace
> 2015 <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015>(GCCS 2015),
> hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking
> place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>
>
> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
> Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015
> event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level
> discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main
> themes ofFreedom <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>,Security
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0>andGrowth
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. The Conference will be a
> stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping
> out the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging
> governments, business, academia and civil society participants at the
> Conference, the organisers hope to find practical solutions to real
> and urgent challenges, and to progress the agenda of a free, open and
> secure internet.
>
>
> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace
> should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful
> way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on
> facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of
> an effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in
> getting Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the
> Conference (The Chair’s Statement).
>
>
> To submit your comments on the draft Chair’s Statement (HERE:
> http://tinyurl.com/lqp8knr), please complete this Google Form
> <http://goo.gl/forms/dYdv3rVkIJ>(link:http://goo.gl/forms/E72m3QTR1K)
> by _*COB Tuesday 7th April*_.
>
>
> The consolidation of this input into a unified document to be
> presented to the Conference organisers will be coordinated by the
> GCCS2015 Advisory Board
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/participants/civil-society-participation>,
> which has been set up by the Conference organisers to help ensure the
> Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.
>
>
> In case you are unable to provide input at this stage, a call for a
> second round of comments on the unified document will be circulated in
> the week of the Conference.
>
>
> If you would rather contact us directly with your comments, please
> write to aditi at gp-digital.org <mailto:aditi at gp-digital.org>, answering
> the following 4 questions on the text:
>
>
> 1.
>
>     Sections of the text that you support being included in the final
>     outcome document
>
> 2.
>
>     Areas of the text which could be strengthened
>
> 3.
>
>     Areas of the text that raise concerns
>
> 4.
>
>     Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity
>
>
> *Feel free to share this call with your civil society networks.*
>
>
>  
>  
> Ian Peter
>  
>  
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150404/ea187910/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Apr  4 10:00:27 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 10:00:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Cybersecutiry and Diplomacy at The Hague
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAchoxBpY3X-O3Um1njZ6zF_dUoGvoRR9n2ZiJBmFvGJ1g@mail.gmail.com>

http://ict4peace.org/ict4peace-conducts-international-cybersecurity-diplomacy-course-at-the-global-conference-on-cyberspace-2015-the-hague-netherlands/

also open for non-gov folks

If you have questions, I am c/cing Daniel and Camino, the organizers.

Best

C


*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150404/19f31fd3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From analia.aspis at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 12:27:28 2015
From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 13:27:28 -0300
Subject: [governance] Yahoo's users
Message-ID: <CABi6_T8UVP11UWcVBCH-d2nuR_KYTf2KwZ4-YMAoFEZp6yO+6A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear members,

We are handling a re-configuration of our web server due to some changes in
Yahoo's policy. Therefore, we would appreciate very much if, until the
problem is solved, those member who  are sending mails to the Caucus list
from a yahoo mail address, can send it from another account, in order to
avoid bouncing problems in our server.

Thank you very much,
Analía and Deidre
Co-coordinators
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150404/887ad2c3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Apr  4 12:37:03 2015
From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 17:37:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] Yahoo's users
In-Reply-To: <CABi6_T8UVP11UWcVBCH-d2nuR_KYTf2KwZ4-YMAoFEZp6yO+6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABi6_T8UVP11UWcVBCH-d2nuR_KYTf2KwZ4-YMAoFEZp6yO+6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMc__op=SABNV7O4AHAzb3=Jusy+V1=eEZF6gYad3OAp7jXPww@mail.gmail.com>

thanks Analía and Deidre
noted.
Remmy Nweke
@ITRealms

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Analia Aspis <analia.aspis at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear members,
>
> We are handling a re-configuration of our web server due to some changes
> in Yahoo's policy. Therefore, we would appreciate very much if, until the
> problem is solved, those member who  are sending mails to the Caucus list
> from a yahoo mail address, can send it from another account, in order to
> avoid bouncing problems in our server.
>
> Thank you very much,
> Analía and Deidre
> Co-coordinators
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
[Member, NIRA Executive Board]
Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
<https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria>
NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 <
http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 4
Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 <http://www.ipv6forumnigeria.com.ng
<http://www.ipv6forumnigeria.ng>> - June 5
@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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150404/2946652e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From compsoftnet at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 17:41:47 2015
From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 22:41:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] Yahoo's users
In-Reply-To: <CABi6_T8UVP11UWcVBCH-d2nuR_KYTf2KwZ4-YMAoFEZp6yO+6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABi6_T8UVP11UWcVBCH-d2nuR_KYTf2KwZ4-YMAoFEZp6yO+6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGK4d0_ha_uqZbfgHmXRYzUKsqNGhVOXr_AV0XcEFTUAV9QpPA@mail.gmail.com>

Nice one.
On Apr 4, 2015 5:27 PM, "Analia Aspis" <analia.aspis at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear members,
>
> We are handling a re-configuration of our web server due to some changes
> in Yahoo's policy. Therefore, we would appreciate very much if, until the
> problem is solved, those member who  are sending mails to the Caucus list
> from a yahoo mail address, can send it from another account, in order to
> avoid bouncing problems in our server.
>
> Thank you very much,
> Analía and Deidre
> Co-coordinators
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150404/717da185/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Apr  4 17:58:00 2015
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 18:58:00 -0300
Subject: [governance] CFP Internet Governance Symposium, Brazil
In-Reply-To: <551DBDCD.8000502@gmail.com>
References: <551DBDCD.8000502@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D145E314.593B8%vanda@uol.com.br>

Thank you Daniel for this reminder!. I am part of two groups and we
already sent  two interestingproposals
 A) No. 64 Disrupting Unemployment, The Innovation for Jobs Economy
B) No 218 -³O Entendimento Comum quanto à Relevância do Conteúdo e da
Criatividade² - "'The Common Understanding for Content and Creativity
Relevance"






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.






On 4/2/15, 19:08, "Daniel Oppermann" <dan.oppermann at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Dear all,
>
>As the deadline for GigaNet's Internet Governance symposium in João
>Pessoa (Brazil) is approaching I would like to send a reminder regarding
>our call for proposals. The CFP is attached to this mail, the deadline
>for proposals is 15 April 2015.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Best
>Daniel
>
>
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVHb3NAAoJEH/3W7QjgHJNHGwIAKppKK4aUouwKkdvbEXyiZFa
>2vmKe9h+0tf75QjsrcOGnU085/VbO6HEPZmVwez/U1YTRp3prik7GJ3WuciwGHKy
>mSpvYQUviULDdsn3BIZiuLN1yAFmDXNMPCDjswlROhrPGWPLE+DQCH+QI4rNvbks
>NQegC06Hx2y4gSfch1ZUL6lA8ZNE0Os/yZ+R8PmZPVGR0vmkjeECxzouUkPSK1zE
>ZHsgKJ4oZvSLgYoaXjX+W500eUnb8OAdvLjsgFcWf28Z/5vOwarbyDuRMhrys5N3
>H2iY93tCO3vtGM1ndTQ5nELTqtun3dJv/GRIZc8A8T0/9c28GotE1FzUfG2axYI=
>=5UWj
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your 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 ahmed22digital at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 09:16:21 2015
From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 16:16:21 +0300
Subject: [governance] pls . vote for GDCO to win WSIS Prize 2015
Message-ID: <CACKazKo3pybDDk_h75qCiE1MCP+L3T6aX4E7DH4gwETeJWMj8w@mail.gmail.com>

dear friends

pls .  *vote for GDCO to win WSIS Prize 2015
<http://api.ning.com/files/wjLHhX7eljyDag4-MqjQQbNkvdX86IsJeB4fhcd3nh608r8dxANchyGrKCPyD0Tcw85gIztwqw*iKuMu50a3fLyQEYAlDrYk/votingwsis.pdf>*

GDCO is nominated to WSIS prize with 2 projects one is in category 9 (
e-Education
<http://api.ning.com/files/wjLHhX7eljyVEXXdjAwrDb*pVbexwS3MGgJdtTfMgy9Q*ZILc1uiSbguedhJH0ZKWkweXYcTSOKouJSS6wqhNE-sSms4Oa4k/SDGIMPeeducationwsis2015.pdf>)
and the 2nd is in category 13 (e-Agriculture
<http://api.ning.com/files/wjLHhX7eljynacKJpgNdOOBXczo8*u6CKt6-CIepxx*ALtL1KPWz4yTE3cbPLuVqTijD6jOA7-nocDD0xi9HHoGwVowACD53/GDCOTelecentresineagriculturewsisSDG2015.pdf>)
 and we appreciate your support to vote for us … pls keep in mind there are
18 categories and you have to select one project from each one (that means
there are 18 prizes)  and you can finish voting in many days but the
closing date is the first of MAY 2015

It is just 2 steps

1-     Create profile or account

2-     Then voting

After you finish 18 click my vote to see

 You can read more about GDCO by clicking here
<http://seepcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/gdco-sudan-and-telecentres-movement-promote-for-ict>

http://seepcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/gdco-sudan-and-telecentres-movement-promote-for-ict

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150405/784b30bf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  5 16:31:25 2015
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 02:01:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] Move to regulate skype and whatsup in India.
In-Reply-To: <eC$YanuVfXGVFA8u@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAHyAo0G5atuvGZjicaxd_sHeqkK0YqvyOSr8q2bOmdnXNZAMGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<eC$YanuVfXGVFA8u@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0GbXBjxe-Dj-xSyWCdqdksG+bh82F6UJ2ShTyYFPiDLYA@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you All, for responding to this thread and for the valuable pointers
to the developments in other countries.

http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/OTT-CP-27032015.pdf

The document from the TELECOM Regulatory Authority of India, starts with
the description "The public internet ... added ability to carry the entire
gamut of services ... *to a consumer of telecom services* "  Beginning with
this description of an Internet for the Telecom Consumer, the document is
Telecom-centric.  The document, in its "Issues for Consultation" on Page
113 - 116 talks about a regulatory framework for OTT services ( I
understand this as a proposal for a Telecom-like regulatory framework, for
the Internet, beginning with regulation of OTT services), and talks about a
"licensing regime". Then it wants comments on OTT revenue to Telecom
Service Providers; then about Security aspects such as OTT logs and
records; discrimination of services; then about encouraging India-specific
OTT services; again about licencing; then about regulation of subscription
charges.

Pushing for an Inquiry or supporting legislation, would actually lead to
unpleasant outcomes, especially if initiated from within the Telecom
regulatory framework.  The ideas expressed in the call for comments already
indicate that there is an inclination to consider not only regulation, but
also licensing. Wrong ideas. Licensing in India worked to preempt
competition. In a licensing framework it has always been expensive for
entrepreneurs to get started.

If the OTT service providers have become dominant, and if there are traces
of unfairness in any of their practices, especially in the context of a
Developing Country with its own administrative nuances, the issues would be
harmlessly addressed by Consumer / multi-stakeholder forums rather than by
regulation and licensing.

@ Roland.  If you look closer, you will find that there are traces of a
move towards a new form of censorship, and non-nuetral discrimination.

@ Jozef    For argument's sake, if a corporation such as Google "invests"
to cultivate relationships, other companies have been doing it since 1865.
Google or anyone, would only have to indulge more in such practices if
there is a regulatory framework !


Sivasubramanian M

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <CAHyAo0G5atuvGZjicaxd_sHeqkK0YqvyOSr8q2bOmdnXNZAMGg@
> mail.gmail.com>, at 14:01:59 on Sun, 29 Mar 2015, Sivasubramanian M <
> isolatedn at gmail.com> writes
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/trai-seeks-to-regulat
>> e-ott-players-like-skype-viber-whatsapp-and-google-talk/
>>
>> On similar proposals in other countries,  how did the Internet user
>> respond
>>
>
> For a moment there I thought you were highlighting a new form of
> censorship, but the article appears to be about Net Neutrality - in the
> sense that carriers should not discriminate between traffic from one "OTT"
> or another, or between OTTs and their own legacy services, based on ransom
> payments.
> --
> Roland Perry
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150406/8d8dbd91/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From cafec3m at yahoo.fr  Mon Apr  6 06:00:42 2015
From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 10:00:42 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] CFP Internet Governance Symposium, Brazil
In-Reply-To: <551DBDCD.8000502@gmail.com>
References: <551DBDCD.8000502@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1462962448.163452.1428314442161.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Hello,
I am interested on toic about "Analyzing, critiquing or supporting multistakeholder governance as an ideology or practice"
My abstract will be ready before deadline date.
Baudouin
  
COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC
 ICANN/AFRALO Member
ISOC Member
courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr 
téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 


     Le Jeudi 2 avril 2015 23h08, Daniel Oppermann <dan.oppermann at gmail.com> a écrit :
   

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear all,

As the deadline for GigaNet's Internet Governance symposium in João
Pessoa (Brazil) is approaching I would like to send a reminder regarding
our call for proposals. The CFP is attached to this mail, the deadline
for proposals is 15 April 2015.

Thanks!

Best
Daniel




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVHb3NAAoJEH/3W7QjgHJNHGwIAKppKK4aUouwKkdvbEXyiZFa
2vmKe9h+0tf75QjsrcOGnU085/VbO6HEPZmVwez/U1YTRp3prik7GJ3WuciwGHKy
mSpvYQUviULDdsn3BIZiuLN1yAFmDXNMPCDjswlROhrPGWPLE+DQCH+QI4rNvbks
NQegC06Hx2y4gSfch1ZUL6lA8ZNE0Os/yZ+R8PmZPVGR0vmkjeECxzouUkPSK1zE
ZHsgKJ4oZvSLgYoaXjX+W500eUnb8OAdvLjsgFcWf28Z/5vOwarbyDuRMhrys5N3
H2iY93tCO3vtGM1ndTQ5nELTqtun3dJv/GRIZc8A8T0/9c28GotE1FzUfG2axYI=
=5UWj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

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

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


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150406/e94e9dd3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From analia.aspis at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 13:23:44 2015
From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:23:44 -0300
Subject: [governance] CFP Internet Governance Symposium, Brazil
In-Reply-To: <1462962448.163452.1428314442161.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <551DBDCD.8000502@gmail.com>
	<1462962448.163452.1428314442161.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CABi6_T_OCeGAQZCEqetkxAGOM87Ppd=9a6N0L9-LxsbzKT6v8g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Baudouin,

Thanks very much for your interest. Please note to submit your abstract
following giganet's web site instructions

Regards,
Analía
Co-coordinator IGC

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 7:00 AM, CAFEC <cafec3m at yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am interested on toic about "*Analyzing, critiquing or supporting
> multistakeholder governance as an ideology or practice"*
>
> My abstract will be ready before deadline date.
>
> Baudouin
>
>
>
> * COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC *ICANN/AFRALO Member
> ISOC Member
> courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr
> téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512
>
>
>
>   Le Jeudi 2 avril 2015 23h08, Daniel Oppermann <dan.oppermann at gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear all,
>
> As the deadline for GigaNet's Internet Governance symposium in João
> Pessoa (Brazil) is approaching I would like to send a reminder regarding
> our call for proposals. The CFP is attached to this mail, the deadline
> for proposals is 15 April 2015.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVHb3NAAoJEH/3W7QjgHJNHGwIAKppKK4aUouwKkdvbEXyiZFa
> 2vmKe9h+0tf75QjsrcOGnU085/VbO6HEPZmVwez/U1YTRp3prik7GJ3WuciwGHKy
> mSpvYQUviULDdsn3BIZiuLN1yAFmDXNMPCDjswlROhrPGWPLE+DQCH+QI4rNvbks
> NQegC06Hx2y4gSfch1ZUL6lA8ZNE0Os/yZ+R8PmZPVGR0vmkjeECxzouUkPSK1zE
> ZHsgKJ4oZvSLgYoaXjX+W500eUnb8OAdvLjsgFcWf28Z/5vOwarbyDuRMhrys5N3
> H2iY93tCO3vtGM1ndTQ5nELTqtun3dJv/GRIZc8A8T0/9c28GotE1FzUfG2axYI=
> =5UWj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150406/c8265bee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  6 17:46:36 2015
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 03:16:36 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
 apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>
References: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0E7O6qhzx3C9B2Gaot6+Cb86zYrjk4EAK-=s7rkT29cqA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Ian,

I sent the following comments by completing the Google form. Posting here
to ask if these views are shared:

*Q4 Sections of the text that you support being included in the final
outcome document*

​The document could fundamentally affirm a Global Commitment to preserve
the Internet as a Free and Open eco-system and commit to preserve its Core
Values. The document could emphatically articulate that the architectural
principles of the Internet are not to be altered, its underlying core
values are not to be altered.​

*Q5 Areas of the text which could be strengthened*

(22)  Not only is it important to facilitate the "acquisition of digital
evidence" but also emphasize the trans-border nature of cybercrime and
provide for faster extradition where there is strong evidence of
trans-border or global cybercrime ​

*Q6 Areas of the text t​​hat raise concerns*

​The overall emphasis on Cyber Security is a cause for concern. There is a
disproportional emphasis on Cyber Security measures over Civil Liberties.​

*Q7 Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity*

( 27) What is emphasized here? State sovereignty or the international
obligations?​



Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Dear friends,
>
> *[Apologies for cross-posting]*
>
>
>
> *Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil
> society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very
> short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input
> in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after
> getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
> comment on the consolidated response as per message below.*
>
>
>
> *Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text
> separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some
> (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to
> argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please
> input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input
> on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015), hosted by
> the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The
> Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>
> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
> Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in
> The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of
> key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. The Conference will be a
> stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out
> the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments,
> business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the
> organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges,
> and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet.
>
> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace
> should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way,
> this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating
> multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to
> achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil
> Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s
> Statement).
>
> To submit your comments on the draft Chair’s Statement (HERE:
> http://tinyurl.com/lqp8knr), please complete this Google Form
> <http://goo.gl/forms/dYdv3rVkIJ> (link:http://goo.gl/forms/E72m3QTR1K) by *COB
> Tuesday 7th April*.
>
> The consolidation of this input into a unified document to be presented to
> the Conference organisers will be coordinated by the GCCS2015 Advisory
> Board <https://www.gccs2015.com/participants/civil-society-participation>,
> which has been set up by the Conference organisers to help ensure the
> Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.
>
> In case you are unable to provide input at this stage, a call for a second
> round of comments on the unified document will be circulated in the week of
> the Conference.
>
> If you would rather contact us directly with your comments, please write
> to aditi at gp-digital.org, answering the following 4 questions on the text:
>
>
>    1.
>
>    Sections of the text that you support being included in the final
>    outcome document
>    2.
>
>    Areas of the text which could be strengthened
>    3.
>
>    Areas of the text that raise concerns
>    4.
>
>    Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity
>
>
> *Feel free to share this call with your civil society networks.*
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150407/58448fd2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  7 06:03:40 2015
From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:03:40 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
 apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0E7O6qhzx3C9B2Gaot6+Cb86zYrjk4EAK-=s7rkT29cqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba> <CAHyAo0E7O6qhzx3C9B2Gaot6+Cb86zYrjk4EAK-=s7rkT29cqA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPcSPKXrR090AsjphMt80_rhh9C0g0k9yE1Xs5mP9tOr9Qev1A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Sivasubramanian

I strongly support the three proposals. You found the right formulation.

For the latter, I suggest that this be clarified: *national sovereignty and
/ or international obligations of a country.*

I am confident that we are facing two paradigms that must necessarily be
explicit in the context of cybercrime.

*Q5 Areas of the text which could be strengthened*
(22)  Not only is it important to facilitate the "acquisition of digital
evidence" but also emphasize the trans-border nature of cybercrime and
provide for faster extradition where there is strong evidence of
trans-border or global cybercrime ​

*Q6 Areas of the text t​​hat raise concerns*

​ The overall emphasis on Cyber Security is a cause for concern. There is a
disproportional emphasis on Cyber Security measures over Civil Liberties.​

*Q7 Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity*

( 27) What is emphasized here? State sovereignty or the international
obligations?​

2015-04-06 22:46 GMT+01:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>:

> Dear Ian,
>
> I sent the following comments by completing the Google form. Posting here
> to ask if these views are shared:
>
> *Q4 Sections of the text that you support being included in the final
> outcome document*
>
> ​The document could fundamentally affirm a Global Commitment to preserve
> the Internet as a Free and Open eco-system and commit to preserve its Core
> Values. The document could emphatically articulate that the architectural
> principles of the Internet are not to be altered, its underlying core
> values are not to be altered.​
>
> *Q5 Areas of the text which could be strengthened*
>
> (22)  Not only is it important to facilitate the "acquisition of digital
> evidence" but also emphasize the trans-border nature of cybercrime and
> provide for faster extradition where there is strong evidence of
> trans-border or global cybercrime ​
>
> *Q6 Areas of the text t​​hat raise concerns*
>
> ​The overall emphasis on Cyber Security is a cause for concern. There is a
> disproportional emphasis on Cyber Security measures over Civil Liberties.​
>
> *Q7 Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity*
>
> ( 27) What is emphasized here? State sovereignty or the international
> obligations?​
>
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>>   Dear friends,
>>
>> *[Apologies for cross-posting]*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil
>> society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very
>> short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input
>> in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after
>> getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
>> comment on the consolidated response as per message below.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text
>> separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some
>> (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to
>> argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please
>> input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input
>> on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015), hosted
>> by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in
>> The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>>
>> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
>> Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in
>> The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of
>> key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. The Conference will be a
>> stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out
>> the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments,
>> business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the
>> organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges,
>> and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet.
>>
>> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace
>> should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way,
>> this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating
>> multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to
>> achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil
>> Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s
>> Statement).
>>
>> To submit your comments on the draft Chair’s Statement (HERE:
>> http://tinyurl.com/lqp8knr), please complete this Google Form
>> <http://goo.gl/forms/dYdv3rVkIJ> (link:http://goo.gl/forms/E72m3QTR1K)
>> by *COB Tuesday 7th April*.
>>
>> The consolidation of this input into a unified document to be presented
>> to the Conference organisers will be coordinated by the GCCS2015
>> Advisory Board
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/participants/civil-society-participation>,
>> which has been set up by the Conference organisers to help ensure the
>> Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.
>>
>> In case you are unable to provide input at this stage, a call for a
>> second round of comments on the unified document will be circulated in the
>> week of the Conference.
>>
>> If you would rather contact us directly with your comments, please write
>> to aditi at gp-digital.org, answering the following 4 questions on the text:
>>
>>
>>    1.
>>
>>    Sections of the text that you support being included in the final
>>    outcome document
>>    2.
>>
>>    Areas of the text which could be strengthened
>>    3.
>>
>>    Areas of the text that raise concerns
>>    4.
>>
>>    Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity
>>
>>
>> *Feel free to share this call with your civil society networks.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150407/df4079cd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Apr  4 07:37:28 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:37:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] US to impose sanctions on foreign cyber attackers
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtOOzPbcHBemUfDTJ4urKkHJzPiZBMwaOPScV=sfU_q0rQ@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CAHuaJtOC50v_UB5QOgSeH2_D0M5aJnmpWxD+QY0J+HVAo337Kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1YdhAr-0007wi-DN@igcaucus.org>
 <CAHuaJtOOzPbcHBemUfDTJ4urKkHJzPiZBMwaOPScV=sfU_q0rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1YfS8N-0007kk-5V@igcaucus.org>

At 00:28 04/04/2015, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>But this should be a larger debate beyond the remit of nation states 
>that involves the broader civil society and other stakeholders. 
>These technologies did not just appear on their own, they were 
>developed by individuals, groups, communities and companies and so 
>forth. Why are we so afraid to create a discourse and bridge the 
>gaps opposed to the propaganda? Why not raise and argue at the IGF 
>and regional fora? Why not a dynamic coalition on the issue?

This should. But for the time being better for me to share in the 
most efficient part I can forster/help.

This is why I would certainly ***welcome and support*** a dynamic 
coalition on the issue. However, as long as I am concerned I can only 
focus on the post-google internet practical "initem" (set of initial 
conditions to condition or having conditionned a system), i.e. the 
catenet's substructural (between operations and infrastructure) 
technology that will allow to complete the second phase of Vint 
Cerf's IEN 48 project of 1978 - of which the first phase was the 
present internet. https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt 
("objectives" section).

This was definitly blocked since 1985 by the NSA "status-quo" 
strategy of architectural protection (lack of OSI Layer 6 
presentation in the UNIX/internet architecture). The recente 
"premissionless innovation" now partly opens the door to that 
possibility; however they want to keep controlling it via the "maffia 
type" multistakeholder pretence. Technological emergence is 
omnistakeholder based anyway, but they will keep containing it as 
much as they can until a full "layer-6+" has been incorporated in the 
multiple technologies involved. 
https://www.iab.org/2014/11/14/iab-statement-on-internet-confidentiality/

jfc

>On Thursday, 2 April 2015, Jefsey 
><<mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com>jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>Fouad,
>
>the problem is not that much what they do, but that they do it in 
>order to accustom us to what they are going to do soon - by Sept. 
>30, 2015: i.e. to formally make ICANN the international law of the 
>internet - and the FCC the cybersupreme court. The transition is 
>from an US Executive Dominion to a colonny under US jursdiction (cf. 
>TPP, TAFTA, etc.)
>Up to now, the only consideration for an alternative is my appeal 
>(<http://iuwg.net/index.php/Letter_to_Lawrence_E._Strickling,_Assistant_Secretary,_NTIA>http://iuwg.net/index.php/Letter_to_Lawrence_E._Strickling,_Assistant_Secretary,_NTIA). 
>
>
>RFC 2026 states: "In all cases a decision concerning the disposition 
>of the dispute, and the communication of that decision to the 
>parties involved, must be accomplished within a reasonable period of 
>time." The delay in responding shows that they consider it carefully 
>as it desserves. So far everything is on track. I expect that 
>several "MYCANN Plugs-in" will be ready by Oct. 1st.
>
>jfc
>
>
>At 14:16 02/04/2015, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
>How far will nations go with addressing the cyberattack threat?
>Pakistan has a cybercrime bill in the making that treats such attacks
>within its borders as treason and severe punishments while larger
>powerful nations with global reach like the US are going to treat this
>possibly with sanctions. Civil Society has so far been a back seat
>audience on such contemporary security issues. There have been
>academic interventions on such subjects but within the practitioner
>and regulatory spaces, there hardly have been any alternative
>approaches to seriously address such issue. May be some consideration
>in future IGFs?
>
>FYI
>Obama threatens foreign cyber attackers with sanctions
>Warwick Ashford, Thursday 02 April 2015 09:45
>Computer Weekly - CYBER SECURITY
><http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500243644/Obama-threatens-foreign-cyber-attackers-with-sanctions>http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500243644/Obama-threatens-foreign-cyber-attackers-with-sanctions
>
>--
>Regards.
>--------------------------
>Fouad Bajwa
>Public Policy Analyst
>Follow my Tweets: <http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa>http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>My Blog: Internet's Governance: 
><http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/>http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>Â  Â  Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>Â  Â  Â 
><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>Â  Â  Â 
><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>Â  Â  Â <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: 
><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Regards.
>--------------------------
>Fouad Bajwa
>Public Policy Analyst
>Follow my Tweets: <http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa>http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>My Blog: Internet's Governance: 
><http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/>http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150404/157c738a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Tue Apr  7 11:04:45 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 11:04:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] US to impose sanctions on foreign cyber attackers
In-Reply-To: <E1YfS8G-0007hz-Ef@igcaucus.org>
References: <CAHuaJtOC50v_UB5QOgSeH2_D0M5aJnmpWxD+QY0J+HVAo337Kg@mail.gmail.com> <E1YdhAr-0007wi-DN@igcaucus.org> <CAHuaJtOOzPbcHBemUfDTJ4urKkHJzPiZBMwaOPScV=sfU_q0rQ@mail.gmail.com> <E1YfS8G-0007hz-Ef@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <5523F20D.10303@gmail.com>


Dear Jefsey.

"that will allow to complete the second phase of Vint Cerf's IEN 48 
project of 1978"

What is this "second phase"? We know, in this time the transport systems 
was analogous based on many different technical implementations. 
Therefore, the first step was to bring the different network 
technologies together. This was a result of the stupid telecommunication 
companies. You know it from France.

many greetings, willi
Iquique, Chile


Am 04-04-2015 um 7:37 schrieb Jefsey:
> At 00:28 04/04/2015, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>> But this should be a larger debate beyond the remit of nation states
>> that involves the broader civil society and other stakeholders. These
>> technologies did not just appear on their own, they were developed by
>> individuals, groups, communities and companies and so forth. Why are
>> we so afraid to create a discourse and bridge the gaps opposed to the
>> propaganda? Why not raise and argue at the IGF and regional fora? Why
>> not a dynamic coalition on the issue?
>
> This should. But for the time being better for me to share in the most
> efficient part I can forster/help.
>
> This is why I would certainly ***welcome and support*** a dynamic
> coalition on the issue. However, as long as I am concerned I can only
> focus on the post-google internet practical "initem" (set of initial
> conditions to condition or having conditionned a system), i.e. the
> catenet's substructural (between operations and infrastructure)
> technology that will allow to complete the second phase of Vint Cerf's
> IEN 48 project of 1978 - of which the first phase was the present
> internet. https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt ("objectives" section).
>
> This was definitly blocked since 1985 by the NSA "status-quo" strategy
> of architectural protection (lack of OSI Layer 6 presentation in the
> UNIX/internet architecture). The recente "premissionless innovation" now
> partly opens the door to that possibility; however they want to keep
> controlling it via the "maffia type" multistakeholder pretence.
> Technological emergence is omnistakeholder based anyway, but they will
> keep containing it as much as they can until a full "layer-6+" has been
> incorporated in the multiple technologies involved.
> https://www.iab.org/2014/11/14/iab-statement-on-internet-confidentiality/
>
> jfc
>

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

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Tue Apr  7 10:11:12 2015
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 16:11:12 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] US to impose sanctions on foreign cyber attackers
In-Reply-To: <5523F20D.10303@gmail.com>
References: <CAHuaJtOC50v_UB5QOgSeH2_D0M5aJnmpWxD+QY0J+HVAo337Kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1YdhAr-0007wi-DN@igcaucus.org>
 <CAHuaJtOOzPbcHBemUfDTJ4urKkHJzPiZBMwaOPScV=sfU_q0rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1YfS8G-0007hz-Ef@igcaucus.org> <5523F20D.10303@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1665275722.19620.1428415872320.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p08>

dear Willy

 

You can't ignore that France's oprator was less "supid" than all others (....) since France Télécom has got the first (full-)digital network : both transport and switching were digitized by the eighties.

 

best

 

Jean-Louis fullsack

 

 

> Message du 07/04/15 16:05
> De : "willi uebelherr" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] US to impose sanctions on foreign cyber attackers
> 
> 
> Dear Jefsey.
> 
> "that will allow to complete the second phase of Vint Cerf's IEN 48 
> project of 1978"
> 
> What is this "second phase"? We know, in this time the transport systems 
> was analogous based on many different technical implementations. 
> Therefore, the first step was to bring the different network 
> technologies together. This was a result of the stupid telecommunication 
> companies. You know it from France.
> 
> many greetings, willi
> Iquique, Chile
> 
> 
> Am 04-04-2015 um 7:37 schrieb Jefsey:
> > At 00:28 04/04/2015, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> >> But this should be a larger debate beyond the remit of nation states
> >> that involves the broader civil society and other stakeholders. These
> >> technologies did not just appear on their own, they were developed by
> >> individuals, groups, communities and companies and so forth. Why are
> >> we so afraid to create a discourse and bridge the gaps opposed to the
> >> propaganda? Why not raise and argue at the IGF and regional fora? Why
> >> not a dynamic coalition on the issue?
> >
> > This should. But for the time being better for me to share in the most
> > efficient part I can forster/help.
> >
> > This is why I would certainly ***welcome and support*** a dynamic
> > coalition on the issue. However, as long as I am concerned I can only
> > focus on the post-google internet practical "initem" (set of initial
> > conditions to condition or having conditionned a system), i.e. the
> > catenet's substructural (between operations and infrastructure)
> > technology that will allow to complete the second phase of Vint Cerf's
> > IEN 48 project of 1978 - of which the first phase was the present
> > internet. https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt ("objectives" section).
> >
> > This was definitly blocked since 1985 by the NSA "status-quo" strategy
> > of architectural protection (lack of OSI Layer 6 presentation in the
> > UNIX/internet architecture). The recente "premissionless innovation" now
> > partly opens the door to that possibility; however they want to keep
> > controlling it via the "maffia type" multistakeholder pretence.
> > Technological emergence is omnistakeholder based anyway, but they will
> > keep containing it as much as they can until a full "layer-6+" has been
> > incorporated in the multiple technologies involved.
> > https://www.iab.org/2014/11/14/iab-statement-on-internet-confidentiality/
> >
> > jfc
> >
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150407/64a5a4c2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lowe.recursos at gmail.com  Tue Apr  7 22:33:29 2015
From: lowe.recursos at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TGXDs24gSi4=?=)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 23:33:29 -0300
Subject: [governance] US to impose sanctions on foreign cyber attackers
In-Reply-To: <1665275722.19620.1428415872320.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p08>
References: <CAHuaJtOC50v_UB5QOgSeH2_D0M5aJnmpWxD+QY0J+HVAo337Kg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1YdhAr-0007wi-DN@igcaucus.org>
	<CAHuaJtOOzPbcHBemUfDTJ4urKkHJzPiZBMwaOPScV=sfU_q0rQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1YfS8G-0007hz-Ef@igcaucus.org>
	<5523F20D.10303@gmail.com>
	<1665275722.19620.1428415872320.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p08>
Message-ID: <CAKiZEKMQqNWTLisYn-HdhGFCCf1HjtUmdU3Jo97aKoR6GXS4ag@mail.gmail.com>

Where is the text of the "executive order"? anyone have a copy?

2015-04-07 11:11 GMT-03:00 Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>:

> dear Willy
>
>
>
> You can't ignore that France's oprator was less "supid" than all others
> (....) since France Télécom has got the first (full-)digital network : both
> transport and switching were digitized by the eighties.
>
>
>
> best
>
>
>
> Jean-Louis fullsack
>
>
>
>
>
> > Message du 07/04/15 16:05
> > De : "willi uebelherr" <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
> > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : Re: [governance] US to impose sanctions on foreign cyber
> attackers
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Jefsey.
> >
> > "that will allow to complete the second phase of Vint Cerf's IEN 48
> > project of 1978"
> >
> > What is this "second phase"? We know, in this time the transport systems
> > was analogous based on many different technical implementations.
> > Therefore, the first step was to bring the different network
> > technologies together. This was a result of the stupid telecommunication
> > companies. You know it from France.
> >
> > many greetings, willi
> > Iquique, Chile
> >
> >
> > Am 04-04-2015 um 7:37 schrieb Jefsey:
> > > At 00:28 04/04/2015, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> > >> But this should be a larger debate beyond the remit of nation states
> > >> that involves the broader civil society and other stakeholders. These
> > >> technologies did not just appear on their own, they were developed by
> > >> individuals, groups, communities and companies and so forth. Why are
> > >> we so afraid to create a discourse and bridge the gaps opposed to the
> > >> propaganda? Why not raise and argue at the IGF and regional fora? Why
> > >> not a dynamic coalition on the issue?
> > >
> > > This should. But for the time being better for me to share in the most
> > > efficient part I can forster/help.
> > >
> > > This is why I would certainly ***welcome and support*** a dynamic
> > > coalition on the issue. However, as long as I am concerned I can only
> > > focus on the post-google internet practical "initem" (set of initial
> > > conditions to condition or having conditionned a system), i.e. the
> > > catenet's substructural (between operations and infrastructure)
> > > technology that will allow to complete the second phase of Vint Cerf's
> > > IEN 48 project of 1978 - of which the first phase was the present
> > > internet. https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt ("objectives"
> section).
> > >
> > > This was definitly blocked since 1985 by the NSA "status-quo" strategy
> > > of architectural protection (lack of OSI Layer 6 presentation in the
> > > UNIX/internet architecture). The recente "premissionless innovation"
> now
> > > partly opens the door to that possibility; however they want to keep
> > > controlling it via the "maffia type" multistakeholder pretence.
> > > Technological emergence is omnistakeholder based anyway, but they will
> > > keep containing it as much as they can until a full "layer-6+" has been
> > > incorporated in the multiple technologies involved.
> > >
> https://www.iab.org/2014/11/14/iab-statement-on-internet-confidentiality/
> > >
> > > jfc
> > >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150407/fbbd6d58/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Wed Apr  8 11:16:18 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 17:16:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] [CFP] Special Issue on Real-Time Signal Processing in
 Embedded Systems, Journal of Systems Architecture (JSA)
Message-ID: <01fe01d0720e$f69a4b80$e3cee280$@unimi.it>

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP]

 

*******************************************************************

Special Issue on Real-Time Signal Processing in Embedded Systems

Journal of Systems Architecture (JSA), Elsevier

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-systems-architecture/call-for-pa
pers/special-issue-on-real-time-signal-processing-in-embedded-sys/
*******************************************************************

 

** General Scope

 

In many cases, signal processing algorithms for embedded systems are
developed and verified theoretically sound for embedded systems
applications. The investigation of embedded systems applying advanced signal
processing techniques can improve system performance. Therefore, embedded
systems with real-time signal processing are becoming more and more
important for multimedia applications for both academia and industry.
Although embedded systems play an important role, many challenging issues
remain to be resolved. Research on embedded systems with real-time signal
processing demands an essentially multi-disciplinary approach, exploiting
ideas from areas as diverse as signal processing techniques, computational
intelligence and embedded system design. To accomplish its real-time
performance, trade-off analysis is needed during the actual applications.

 

In this special issue, we intend to bring together researchers in the
related fields to demonstrate the latest developments and solutions
regarding various aspects of real-time signal processing tools in embedded
systems. This special issue is destined to solve the embedded system issues
between the theory and practice of signal processing to real time
applications. We invite investigators to contribute original research
articles as well as review articles that will stimulate the continuing
efforts to understand the real-time signal processing for embedded systems.
Potential topics include, but are not limited to:

 

- Real-time digital images & watermarking

- Modeling of multimedia systems

- Secure and Privacy-aware Image Processing

- Real-time signal compression and analysis

- Multimedia systems design methodologies and case studies

- Multimedia processors and reconfigurable architectures

- Spatial and temporal estimation and protection of media streams

- Learning systems for signal and information processing and evidential
reasoning for recognition

- Soft computing approaches for embedded multimedia systems

- Software optimization and compiler techniques

- Real time signal processing & vision

- Expert system for embedded system

- Color and illumination processing

 

** Submission Information

 

Submissions must not substantially overlap papers that have been published
or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or conference/workshop
with proceedings.

All manuscripts including any supplementary material should be submitted via
the online submission systems at http://ees.elsevier.com/jsa following the
journal's Guide for Authors available at
http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-systems-architecture/1383-7621/g
uide-for-authors 

 

** Important Dates

 

- Manuscript Due Date July 10, 2015

- First Round of Reviews September 30, 2015

- Publication Date February 10, 2016

 

** Editor-in-Chief

 

- I.J. Bate, Dept. of Computer Science, University of York, UK

 

** Guest Editors

 

- Ernesto Damiani, EBTIC/Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE

- Albert Dipanda, Université de Bourgogne - ESIREM, Dijon, France

- Gwanggil Jeon, Incheon National University, South Korea

- Marco Anisetti, Università degli Studi di Milano, Dipartimento di
Informatica, Italy

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150408/3b004f7f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Thu Apr  9 02:55:34 2015
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:55:34 +0300
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance for newbie - deadline 25 MAR
In-Reply-To: <1129B520-C6DD-4761-99BD-98AD8DBABDFC@me.com>
References: <1129B520-C6DD-4761-99BD-98AD8DBABDFC@me.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwo2ebZo8A+yxPfhHK_GS3QbZTDm=BZ2Ua7u6-MP7wVgOQ@mail.gmail.com>

This is a great resource.

Thank you Carlos

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson


On 17 March 2015 at 19:12, "João Carlos R. Caribé" <joao.caribe at me.com>
wrote:

> Dears,
>
> I'm finalizing the research about IG for newbie, one article about how and
> where to learn about IG and how and where to seek scholarship / travel
> support to participate on the IG events. I plan to publish it around march
> 25.
>
> All information I found / get are on this PiratePad -
> http://piratepad.net/IG4newbie - feel free to edit, preserving the
> content.
>
> All the content you can read bellow:
>
> *IG 4 Newbie*
>
> *ABOUT/ INSTRUCTIONS*
>
>    - the purpose of research, is to list the major opportunities for
>    newcomers to IG.
>
>
>
>    - These opportunities fall into courses, financial assistance for
>    participation in IG events and programs for youth participation in IG
>    events.
>
>
>
>    - Our focus are the newcomer that has a few or none relation to IG
>
>
>
>    - Please prefer write a link to program / course instead describe then
>    here.
>
>
>
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *1) IG Schools, courses and resources *
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
> *Classroom courses*
>
>
>    -  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/  - LAC region
>
>
>    -  African School on Internet Governance (APC) -
>    http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/  - Africa region
>
>
> *Online courses*
>
>
>    - ICANN Learn (online - free) - http://learn.icann.org/
>
>
>    - Diplo Foundation (online - scholarship available) -
>    http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP - Blended learning - Online
>    with a with a week or so initial onsite course in University of Malta -
>    Scholarships available of 20-40% and priority given to small island states
>
>
>    - ISOC (online - free) -
>    http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/inforum-learn-online
>
>
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *2) Youth Programs / Next Generation Programs*
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
>
>    - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program - ICANN and IGF
>    meetings http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/programa-de-becas
>
>
>    - Youth IGF (Childnet) (Europe) - Youth Program - IGF meetings
>    http://www.youthigfproject.com/
>
>
>    - ISOC - Next Generation Leaders Programme
>    http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders-ngl-programme
>
>
>    - ICANN - NextGen conducted by NetMission staff - http://ngi.asia/
>
>
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *3) IG meeting scholarship/fellowship*
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *NOTE: Integral support = airfare, acomodation and stipend; Travel support
> = airfare and acomodation, Partial Suport = describe)*
>
> *ICANN meetings*
>
>    - ICANN Fellowship Program -
>    https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fellowships-2012-02-25-en
>
>
> *IGF meeting*
>
>    - CGI.Br (Integral support) - http://cgi.br/
>
>
>    - Diplo - based on the performance on the courses
>
>
>    - APC (just for members) -
>    https://www.apc.org/en/projects/member-exchange-and-travel-fund-metf
>
>
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *3.1) Regional IGF meetings*
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
>
> *LACIGF - Latin America and Caribe *
>
>    - CGI.Br (integral support) -http://cgi.br/
>
>
>    - LACNIC (Partial: airfare or hotel)
>    http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/programa-de-becas
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3.2) By Country IGF meetings
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Forum da Internet (Brazil) *
>
>    - CGI.Br (Integral Support)
>
>
> *IGF Paraguay (Paraguay)*
>
> Check it
> http://igfpak.org/?p <http://igfpak.org/?p=450>
> <http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=450>=450 <http://igfpak.org/?p=450>
> http://igfpak.org/?p <http://igfpak.org/?p=452>
> <http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=452>=452 <http://igfpak.org/?p=452>
>
>
> --
> João Carlos R. Caribé
> Consultor
> Skype joaocaribe
> (021) 4042 7727
> (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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150409/4250d9ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From garth.graham at telus.net  Thu Apr  9 16:15:46 2015
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 13:15:46 -0700
Subject: [governance] New Blogpost: Is There a Global Internet Community
In-Reply-To: <004c01d06bfd$2f7b44d0$8e71ce70$@gmail.com>
References: <004301d06bfc$2ac81270$80583750$@gmail.com> <004c01d06bfd$2f7b44d0$8e71ce70$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6CDEB632-528A-4A88-A25F-AC54E0347AD7@telus.net>

On Mar 31, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Some may find this of interest…
> https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/is-there-a-global-internet-community/

…and I do!

> In his blog post of March 31/15, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> “…. there is no such thing as “the Global Internet Community” except as an ideological convenience for those who wish to proceed as though the Internet has not become a place where very real social, political, economic and cultural contestations are, will and must take place.  …… The notion of community implies a commonality of interests and that out of this commonality, consensus can be found to address issues of common concern. But it is now overwhelmingly evident that apart from ensuring the continued effective technical functioning of the Internet as a common resource for all, there are effectively no common interests on the basis of which a “Global Internet Community” could be derived.” (1).


There is, however, such a thing as digital culture, the mind of which can be inferred from its information and communications technology artifacts.  The forums you reference have not abandoned their intention that the future of Internet Governance must depend on the existence of “a distributed, decentralized and multistakeholder ecosystem.” (2).  If you were saying that organizations like ICANN should not replace the idea of Internet Governance as ecology with the vapid notion of a Global Internet Community I would agree.  But they aren’t.  And it seems to me that what you say about the nonexistence of a Global Internet Community also applies equally to the idea of a Global Public Interest.

On the left, the right and the center of the existing political spectrum, everyone is contesting control of the Internet’s carriage and content as a means to further their own ends.  Whether it’s the people versus the elites, bottom-up versus top down, or the periphery versus the center, somebody’s trying to represent my interests in the name of democracy, social justice, market competition or some other bait-and-switch.  And I can’t tell one purported ruler from another.  We are hell-bent on re-balancing control of Internet Governance within the framework of existing political alignments, and it really changes nothing.

On the other hand, ISOC was correct when it described the existence of an Internet Governance Ecology.  The Internet that I have, and that I want to keep, is neither a “decentralized network for unmediated social connections,” nor a “surveillance-centric network controlled by a handful of governments and corporate monopolies.” (3).  Instead of framing Internet Governance alternatives in terms of a struggle for control of global power, I believe that the existence of the Internet as a technology, and the evolution of its governance so far, are symptoms of a distributed systems worldview in action. It took a particular way of seeing the possibility of a different order of things, an order based on an understanding of the principles governing complex adaptive and self-organizing systems, for the Internet to appear.   It will take a conscious embrace of those principles to ensure its future integrity.

The Internet is not a place. It’s a protocol grounded in a shift in epistemology away from the mechanistic and towards the relational.  Nothing inherent in the protocol’s actualization gives a damn about how senders and receivers of packets identify their ideological stances or social roles.  The packets still connect, even when an autonomous individual makes the increasingly absurd choice to identify himself or herself as subordinate to someone else.

The Internet’s existence reveals something about the values and beliefs of the digital culture that was able to imagine a different way of supporting communications.   To me that means seeking for the principles of an appropriate governance system by reference to its cultural origin.  For example, you do acknowledge that the “effective technical functioning of the Internet as a common resource” requires a community of practice to function. There are good and proper Internet-like reasons for that.  

It also seems to me that your line of of argument is taking you away from another ecologically correct statement, the Community Informatics declaration that the global is a federation of locals.    I am seized by that declaration precisely because I understand there’s nothing more local than community.

After the individual, community has emerged as the second essential structural element of the digital world.  But the idea of community is in the process of being re-defined in relational terms.  A community is a human ecological system that emerges from the relational interactions and interdependences among autonomous individuals in their social environment and the situations they occupy.  As an open system, the qualities that cause it to emerge are trust and the exercise of individual choice.  I do accept that evoking the idea of a Global Internet Community is an empty phrase of possible insidious intent.  But the reason persons chose to use the Internet with such passion is precisely because it enables community defined in relational terms.

>From the perspective of distributed systems, community, and particularly community online, is Instead of society imposing identity upon individuals, they have gained access to society by design. They are “stepping out,” to an open conversation between society and the self.  They know that conservatives, socialists and neo-liberals are all going to betray them in the name of liberty, security and the greater good.  They have no need to surrender freedoms into the needs of group solidarity to act within the framework of a group.

We are in the process of abandoning the sense of community as a collective.  In fact, collective human action such as, “people's control of social technologies,” is not essential for the Internet to deliver good outcomes. That’s just as much of a threat as all those other ideological conveniences.  Informed by the choices of autonomous individuals, the relations that form community are reciprocal but not communal.

Consider the questioning of solidarity and collective action raised in Jean-Luc Nancy's "Inoperative Community," how to create "being together" without a "being as one?”….. "The community that becomes a single thing (body, mind, fatherland, Leader...) ...necessarily loses the in of being-in-common. Or, it loses the with or the together that defines it. It yields its being-together to a being of togetherness. The truth of community, on the contrary, resides in the retreat of such a being."

>From the perspective of distributed systems (complex adaptive and self-organizing systems), community is not a thing, a noun. A community is what you get when autonomous individuals chose to bundle themselves together in a certain way without surrendering their autonomy. It’s a dynamic verbalization of relational possibilities, choices, and practices. It’s an epistemic structural realization. It’s a net of relations. A community emerges purely on the basis of trusted relations among individuals, not on the basis of the particulars of individuals and not on the basis of some externally impose ideology.  Those particulars remain in the individuals themselves. The individuals who inform the bundle can change, and an individual within the bundle can change through awareness of the information. But, as long as the relations remain structurally the same, the way of bundling into community continues over time.

I once made a fast scan of the meaning of stakeholder implicit in the NETmundial outcome documents.  This showed me that stakeholders are not anyone who self-identifies as such. They are qualified into collective categories of organizations that are then “represented.” The assumptions about structure that follow from that categorization are consistent with an implicit assumption to aggregate individuals into “hubs” (or as ICANN does, to indoctrinate and submerge individuals into internal “communities” in the old collective sense).  This analysis reinforces my awareness that there is neither a consensus about the beliefs and values or even existence of digital culture nor an agenda about governance that intends to look in that direction.

This rush into a “contestation” of ideologies abandons the Internet’s infinite game of positive network externalities for a finite game of winners and losers.  Except that everybody loses.  It’s not good “Internet” if the choice to connect, and to converse, and to be together doesn’t rest at the level of the individual.   It’s the individual who is at the edge of the social networks and their positive externalities.  We desperately need to keep the smarts at the edge and the power distributed among a federation of locals.

(1). Mike Gurstein. Is There a Global Internet Community? Gurstein's Community Informatics, March 31, 2015.  https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/is-there-a-global-internet-community/

(2). NETmundial Principlesfile://localhost/. https/::www.netmundial.org:principles

(3). Call for an Internet Social Forum. http://internetsocialforum.net

(4). The rest of this comment is a re-working of part of: Garth Graham. Taking Internet Governance Ecology at its word. June 10, 2014.
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48343654/ecology%20realized.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1402436268000&api=v2

GG


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

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Apr 10 20:30:07 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:30:07 +1000
Subject: [governance] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies
 for short time frame
Message-ID: <92E0348530E345AFAD15C51236181CD6@Toshiba>

Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with comments and suggestions.

I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the Dutch organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the process is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week. However at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather discussion limited to red line text.

This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised with 48 hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our suggestions make it through to the final statement!

Ian Peter

From: Ian Peter 
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; forum at justnetcoalition.org 
Subject: CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame

Dear friends,



[Apologies for cross-posting]



Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to comment on the consolidated response as per message below.



Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.











We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015. 



Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet. 



Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s Statement).



<snip> 


Ian Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150411/d9076389/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GCCS - CS Response to Chairs Statement_Apr 10.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 393499 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150411/d9076389/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Apr 10 20:40:12 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 20:40:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
 apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>
References: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4cgejcnr=fqtLg-V-K=KZAaB-eCYmP3e=FtCttH0WUHQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Ian.
Deirdre

On 3 April 2015 at 17:02, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Dear friends,
>
> *[Apologies for cross-posting]*
>
>
>
> *Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil
> society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very
> short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input
> in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after
> getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
> comment on the consolidated response as per message below.*
>
>
>
> *Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text
> separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some
> (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to
> argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please
> input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input
> on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015), hosted by
> the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The
> Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>
> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
> Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in
> The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of
> key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. The Conference will be a
> stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out
> the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments,
> business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the
> organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges,
> and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet.
>
> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace
> should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way,
> this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating
> multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to
> achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil
> Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s
> Statement).
>
> To submit your comments on the draft Chair’s Statement (HERE:
> http://tinyurl.com/lqp8knr), please complete this Google Form
> <http://goo.gl/forms/dYdv3rVkIJ> (link:http://goo.gl/forms/E72m3QTR1K) by *COB
> Tuesday 7th April*.
>
> The consolidation of this input into a unified document to be presented to
> the Conference organisers will be coordinated by the GCCS2015 Advisory
> Board <https://www.gccs2015.com/participants/civil-society-participation>,
> which has been set up by the Conference organisers to help ensure the
> Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.
>
> In case you are unable to provide input at this stage, a call for a second
> round of comments on the unified document will be circulated in the week of
> the Conference.
>
> If you would rather contact us directly with your comments, please write
> to aditi at gp-digital.org, answering the following 4 questions on the text:
>
>
>    1.
>
>    Sections of the text that you support being included in the final
>    outcome document
>    2.
>
>    Areas of the text which could be strengthened
>    3.
>
>    Areas of the text that raise concerns
>    4.
>
>    Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity
>
>
> *Feel free to share this call with your civil society networks.*
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150410/d9fd91ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 11 15:41:16 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 05:41:16 +1000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
 apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <CAFwCmbGo-dZZmQWMfd5i92b+oy_1uBPLzODwnVXSrt6iV=XSQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <92E0348530E345AFAD15C51236181CD6@Toshiba> <CAFwCmbGo-dZZmQWMfd5i92b+oy_1uBPLzODwnVXSrt6iV=XSQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2B6A8382227F4375B51EA46C55014026@Toshiba>

>Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 

Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair’s statement when finalised will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/

But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and trying to be “multistakeholder” for the first time. But this does not (yet) extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs across stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...


Ian

From: Anne Jellema 
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
To: Ian Peter 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; JNC Forum 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame

Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
Best
Anne

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

  Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with comments and suggestions.

  I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the Dutch organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the process is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week. However at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather discussion limited to red line text.

  This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised with 48 hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our suggestions make it through to the final statement!

  Ian Peter

  From: Ian Peter 
  Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
  To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; forum at justnetcoalition.org 
  Subject: CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame

  Dear friends,



  [Apologies for cross-posting]



  Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to comment on the consolidated response as per message below.



  Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.











  We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015. 



  Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet. 



  Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s Statement).



  <snip> 


  Ian Peter



  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as 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  
+27 061 036 9352 (ZA) 

+1 202 684 6885 (US)
Twitter: @afjellema
PGP: 1640BED9
World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150412/88ad7c4b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Sat Apr 11 16:16:49 2015
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 20:16:49 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
 apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <2B6A8382227F4375B51EA46C55014026@Toshiba>
References: <92E0348530E345AFAD15C51236181CD6@Toshiba> <CAFwCmbGo-dZZmQWMfd5i92b+oy_1uBPLzODwnVXSrt6iV=XSQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2B6A8382227F4375B51EA46C55014026@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CADFgh10SchNW8Eu0LYSDRpSW62=_-m3412Bx-kg6HeTewxFS3w@mail.gmail.com>

Many thanks, Ian

This will come in handy in developing a 4-minute keynote.  I Will see how
many of the key pints I can incorporate. have been further informed that
keynote speakers are to keep to specific themes and mine will be "bridging
the digital divide; freedom and privacy online".

Granted, it will be important to stress the respect of human rights and all
of that, but I am convinced that the Parminder question of "why are you
shying away from more democratic UN-led instances?" on the process may
still need to be asked.  From the suggestion from organisers, Fadi Chehade
will be the one speaking on "Internet Governance"

Still listening here

N

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   >Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
>
> Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair’s statement when finalised
> will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/
>
> But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign
> ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and
> trying to be “multistakeholder” for the first time. But this does not (yet)
> extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs
> to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs
> across stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...
>
>
> Ian
>
>  *From:* Anne Jellema <anne.jellema at webfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
> *To:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; JNC
> Forum <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
> apologies for short time frame
>
>  Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
> Best
> Anne
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>>   Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with
>> comments and suggestions.
>>
>> I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the Dutch
>> organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the process
>> is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the
>> various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week.
>> However at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather
>> discussion limited to red line text.
>>
>> This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised with 48
>> hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about
>> 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and
>> left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and
>> submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we
>> trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and
>> viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our
>> suggestions make it through to the final statement!
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>  *From:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ;
>> forum at justnetcoalition.org
>> *Subject:* CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short
>> time frame
>>
>>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> *[Apologies for cross-posting]*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil
>> society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very
>> short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input
>> in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after
>> getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
>> comment on the consolidated response as per message below.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text
>> separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some
>> (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to
>> argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please
>> input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input
>> on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015), hosted
>> by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in
>> The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>>
>> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
>> Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in
>> The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of
>> key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. The Conference will be a
>> stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out
>> the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments,
>> business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the
>> organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges,
>> and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet.
>>
>> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace
>> should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way,
>> this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating
>> multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to
>> achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil
>> Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s
>> Statement).
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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
> +27 061 036 9352 (ZA)
> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
> Twitter: @afjellema
> PGP: 1640BED9
> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
> DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150411/2a2fab9d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sat Apr 11 16:41:33 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 16:41:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
 apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh10SchNW8Eu0LYSDRpSW62=_-m3412Bx-kg6HeTewxFS3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <92E0348530E345AFAD15C51236181CD6@Toshiba> <CAFwCmbGo-dZZmQWMfd5i92b+oy_1uBPLzODwnVXSrt6iV=XSQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2B6A8382227F4375B51EA46C55014026@Toshiba> <CADFgh10SchNW8Eu0LYSDRpSW62=_-m3412Bx-kg6HeTewxFS3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7xBK8X7DEJ-SjwbCSzK==YyebPqsnM7Y9xaLKHuSLOTQ@mail.gmail.com>

I found the Capacity Building (paras 44-47) section rather interesting in
that respect. The aspects/values of "multistakeholderism" that most people
seem to agree with - collaboration, co-operation, sharing, involvement,
together with lists of those who might be involved and an open invitation
to any others who are interested - are present throughout the section but
the word itself doesn't appear.

Deirdre

On 11 April 2015 at 16:16, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Many thanks, Ian
>
> This will come in handy in developing a 4-minute keynote.  I Will see how
> many of the key pints I can incorporate. have been further informed that
> keynote speakers are to keep to specific themes and mine will be "bridging
> the digital divide; freedom and privacy online".
>
> Granted, it will be important to stress the respect of human rights and
> all of that, but I am convinced that the Parminder question of "why are you
> shying away from more democratic UN-led instances?" on the process may
> still need to be asked.  From the suggestion from organisers, Fadi Chehade
> will be the one speaking on "Internet Governance"
>
> Still listening here
>
> N
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>>   >Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
>>
>> Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair’s statement when
>> finalised will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/
>>
>> But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign
>> ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and
>> trying to be “multistakeholder” for the first time. But this does not (yet)
>> extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs
>> to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs
>> across stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>  *From:* Anne Jellema <anne.jellema at webfoundation.org>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
>> *To:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; JNC
>> Forum <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
>> apologies for short time frame
>>
>>  Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
>> Best
>> Anne
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>   Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with
>>> comments and suggestions.
>>>
>>> I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the Dutch
>>> organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the process
>>> is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the
>>> various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week.
>>> However at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather
>>> discussion limited to red line text.
>>>
>>> This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised with 48
>>> hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about
>>> 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and
>>> left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and
>>> submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we
>>> trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and
>>> viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our
>>> suggestions make it through to the final statement!
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>  *From:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ;
>>> forum at justnetcoalition.org
>>> *Subject:* CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short
>>> time frame
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear friends,
>>>
>>> *[Apologies for cross-posting]*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil
>>> society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very
>>> short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input
>>> in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after
>>> getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
>>> comment on the consolidated response as per message below.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text
>>> separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some
>>> (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to
>>> argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please
>>> input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society
>>> input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace
>>> 2015 <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015), hosted
>>> by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in
>>> The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>>>
>>> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
>>> Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in
>>> The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of
>>> key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of
>>> Freedom <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
>>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
>>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. The Conference will be a
>>> stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out
>>> the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments,
>>> business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the
>>> organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges,
>>> and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet.
>>>
>>> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace
>>> should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way,
>>> this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating
>>> multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to
>>> achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil
>>> Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s
>>> Statement).
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as 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
>> +27 061 036 9352 (ZA)
>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>> Twitter: @afjellema
>> PGP: 1640BED9
>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
>> DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://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
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150411/716a4331/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ahmed22digital at gmail.com  Sat Apr 11 17:21:34 2015
From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 00:21:34 +0300
Subject: [governance] pls vote for GDCO SUDAN TELECENTRES AND ICANN
Message-ID: <CACKazKpR5F2fHbKm2FjiHd-g_J0Mb_Fduz88ga3RqWd4S6oL7Q@mail.gmail.com>

DEAR sir
pls vote for GDCO Sudan  and ICANN to win the WSIS 2015 PRIZE fellow the
steps


http://www.unite-it.eu/profiles/blogs/voting-for-gdco-sudan-telecentres-wsis-2015-prize

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150412/ab09e6f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From analia.aspis at gmail.com  Mon Apr 13 06:25:26 2015
From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 07:25:26 -0300
Subject: [governance] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs
 Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <68D2A044-9BD6-4B66-9A17-BC20457EE100@gp-digital.org>
References: <92E0348530E345AFAD15C51236181CD6@Toshiba>
	<CAFwCmbGo-dZZmQWMfd5i92b+oy_1uBPLzODwnVXSrt6iV=XSQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2B6A8382227F4375B51EA46C55014026@Toshiba>
	<68D2A044-9BD6-4B66-9A17-BC20457EE100@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <CABi6_T9dGxeBLkYScHkmBo-b0i7EWnmB_L73wQizBx=VThmd4w@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you very much Lea!

Analía and Deidre
Co-coordinators

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Hi Anne, all,
>
> For your reference, the statement is available as a Google doc:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12FIu2CRABhvCBtYkzIHvOa4_HQq7EG1RcItL-csNUoo/mobilebasic?pli=1
>
> Warm wishes,
> Lea
>
>
> On 11 Apr 2015, at 20:41, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>  >Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
>
> Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair’s statement when finalised
> will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/
>
> But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign
> ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and
> trying to be “multistakeholder” for the first time. But this does not (yet)
> extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs
> to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs
> across stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...
>
>
> Ian
>
>  *From:* Anne Jellema <anne.jellema at webfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
> *To:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; JNC
> Forum <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
> apologies for short time frame
>
>  Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
> Best
> Anne
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>>   Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with
>> comments and suggestions.
>>
>> I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the Dutch
>> organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the process
>> is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the
>> various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week.
>> However at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather
>> discussion limited to red line text.
>>
>> This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised with 48
>> hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about
>> 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and
>> left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and
>> submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we
>> trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and
>> viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our
>> suggestions make it through to the final statement!
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>  *From:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ;
>> forum at justnetcoalition.org
>> *Subject:* CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short
>> time frame
>>
>>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> *[Apologies for cross-posting]*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil
>> society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very
>> short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input
>> in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after
>> getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
>> comment on the consolidated response as per message below.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text
>> separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some
>> (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to
>> argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please
>> input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input
>> on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015), hosted
>> by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in
>> The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>>
>> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
>> Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in
>> The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of
>> key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. The Conference will be a
>> stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out
>> the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments,
>> business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the
>> organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges,
>> and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet.
>>
>> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace
>> should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way,
>> this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating
>> multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to
>> achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil
>> Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s
>> Statement).
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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
> +27 061 036 9352 (ZA)
> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
> Twitter: @afjellema
> PGP: 1640BED9
> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
> DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150413/7ee04380/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 13 13:38:42 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:38:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs
 Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <1f1501d07610$6a96dad0$3fc49070$@gmail.com>
References: <LPEDLFMPHEAFCAMJJICEEEANCBAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <552B8AF1.5040700@apc.org> <1f1501d07610$6a96dad0$3fc49070$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1f3601d07610$afa1df80$0ee59e80$@gmail.com>

Anriette (and NNena),

I may have missed it but while the Hague meeting covers a range of topics
including some new ones I don't see anywhere where there is a discussion of
the social justice aspects or consequences of the Internet (apart from the
pro forma repetition of referencing to the "Digital Divide" and "access").
Equally and regrettably this can also be said for all of the other events
that you point to in your note below--NetMundial, NMI, etc.etc.

Accelerating income inequality, Internet supported loss of "good jobs", the
mad rush to the bottom in a range of employment areas which are shifting to
the global Internet platforms, the loss of health and safety protections in
the newly emerging forms of employment contracting, tax dodging, and so on
and so on all need to be addressed by global forums such as these and as a
matter of escalating urgency.

Equally, I would like to see some questioning of the prioritization of
"capacity building".  Admittedly, "capacity building" is of considerable
value and utility in areas with a very high technical component.  However,
the use of this model -- with a highly skewed and selected group of
instructors and a very narrow and uncritical selections of topics and
reading resources is in practice little more than a form of ideological
indoctrination, including I should and regrettably say as being executed by
Civil Society organizations along with others.

Good policy, policy analysis and policy development comes from a deep and
widely informed reflection on a range of issues and perspectives and having
a critical approach and understanding of the issues and their broad
socio-political and economic contexts (much beyond that which is being
presented by the current Internet policy establishment) is of absolute
necessity if the interests of the broad range of nations and populations in
the world and particularly those for whom CS has traditionally been
representative, are to be adequately accounted for.

M


-----Original Message----
From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of
Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: April 13, 2015 2:23 AM
To: forum at justnetcoalition.org; Ian Peter; nnenna75 at gmail.com
Cc: Anne Jellema
Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS
- apologies for short time frame

Dear all

I am on a panel on the last day of the event on Internet Governance. I will
definitely raise the issue of how important it is to work with the existing
intergovernmental system and the UN system.

As I have said previously, the multistakeholder approach should be a way of
building more inclusion and democracy into internet governance and serve as
a mechanism for engaging governments rather than bypassing governments.

Other thoughts from you would be helpful, and I will pick up on Nnenna's
opening statement.

The panel outline:


Parallel Session : Internet governance - Global Cooperation for a
Sustainable Future

Internet governance impacts on the three themes of GCCS2015: freedom,
security and growth.
This session will focus on five key interrelated initiatives and events
which are paving the way forward for the Internet governance ecosystem:

    the NETmundial multistakeholder statement on Internet governance
principles and the roadmap for the future evolution of Internet governance;
    the IANA Stewardship Transition to the global Internet community of the
coordination and management of the Internet domain name system (DNS) and
enhancement of ICANN's accountability;
    the Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG);
    the NETmundial Initiative;
    the UN General Assembly High Level Event in December 2015 on the review
of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS) (2003-2005) as well as on the renewal of the mandate of the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Best

Anriette



On 13/04/2015 09:36, Richard Hill wrote:
> Dear Nenna,
> 
> Thank you for this. I had strongly supported Parminder's statement
regarding why shun the UN, so it is not just him calling for that.
> 
> I would encourage you to make that point in your four-minute 
> statement,
and in fact I think that it should be added to the consolidated input from
civil society.
> 
> Thanks again and best,
> Richard
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of
Nnenna Nwakanma
>   Sent: samedi, 11. avril 2015 22:17
>   To: Ian Peter
>   Cc: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Anne Jellema; Governance; JNC Forum
>   Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement 
> for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
> 
> 
>   Many thanks, Ian
> 
> 
>   This will come in handy in developing a 4-minute keynote.  I Will 
> see
how many of the key pints I can incorporate. have been further informed that
keynote speakers are to keep to specific themes and mine will be "bridging
the digital divide; freedom and privacy online".
> 
> 
>   Granted, it will be important to stress the respect of human rights 
> and
all of that, but I am convinced that the Parminder question of "why are you
shying away from more democratic UN-led instances?" on the process may still
need to be asked.  From the suggestion from organisers, Fadi Chehade will be
the one speaking on "Internet Governance"
> 
> 
>   Still listening here
> 
> 
>   N
> 
> 
> 
>   On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
wrote:
> 
>     >Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
> 
>     Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair's statement when 
> finalised will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/
> 
>     But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign
ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and
trying to be "multistakeholder" for the first time. But this does not (yet)
extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs
to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs across
stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...
> 
> 
>     Ian
> 
>     From: Anne Jellema 
>     Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
>     To: Ian Peter 
>     Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; 
> JNC
Forum 
>     Subject: Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - 
> apologies for short time frame
> 
>     Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
>     Best
>     Anne
> 
>     On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter 
> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
wrote:
> 
>       Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with
comments and suggestions.
> 
>       I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the
Dutch organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the
process is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the
various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week. However
at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather
discussion limited to red line text.
> 
>       This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised 
> with
48 hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about
40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and
left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and
submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we
trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and
viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our suggestions
make it through to the final statement!
> 
>       Ian Peter
> 
>       From: Ian Peter 
>       Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
>       To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> ;
forum at justnetcoalition.org 
>       Subject: CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for 
> short time frame
> 
>       Dear friends,
> 
> 
> 
>       [Apologies for cross-posting]
> 
> 
> 
>       Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the
civil society response to the Chair's statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for
very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider
input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response
after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
comment on the consolidated response as per message below.
> 
> 
> 
>       Governments and business interests will also be responding to 
> the
text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are
some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need
to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But
please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address
below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil 
> society
input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
(GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and
taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015. 
> 
> 
> 
>       Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul
(2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015
event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level
discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes
of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking
event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges
and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business,
academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers
hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to
progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet. 
> 
> 
> 
>       Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in
cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a
meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on
facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an
effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting
Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The
Chair's Statement).
> 
> 
> 
>       <snip>
> 
> 
>       Ian Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       ____________________________________________________________
>       You received this message as 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  
>     +27 061 036 9352 (ZA)
> 
>     +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>     Twitter: @afjellema
>     PGP: 1640BED9
>     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.or
> g
> 

_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum at justnetcoalition.org
http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org



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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Apr 13 13:52:23 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:52:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs
 Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <1f3601d07610$afa1df80$0ee59e80$@gmail.com>
References: <LPEDLFMPHEAFCAMJJICEEEANCBAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <552B8AF1.5040700@apc.org> <1f1501d07610$6a96dad0$3fc49070$@gmail.com> <1f3601d07610$afa1df80$0ee59e80$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1f6a01d07612$995137b0$cbf3a710$@gmail.com>

Sorry, something was left out of the last sentence...

M

Anriette (and NNena),

I may have missed it but while the Hague meeting covers a range of topics
including some new ones I don't see anywhere where there is a discussion of
the social justice aspects or consequences of the Internet (apart from the
pro forma repetition of referencing to the "Digital Divide" and "access").
Equally and regrettably this can also be said for all of the other events
that you point to in your note below--NetMundial, NMI, etc.etc.

Accelerating income inequality, Internet supported loss of "good jobs", the
mad rush to the bottom in a range of employment areas which are shifting to
the global Internet platforms, the loss of health and safety protections in
the newly emerging forms of employment contracting, tax dodging, and so on
and so on all need to be addressed by global forums such as these and as a
matter of escalating urgency.

Equally, I would like to see some questioning of the prioritization of
"capacity building".  Admittedly, "capacity building" is of considerable
value and utility in areas with a very high technical component.  However,
the use of this model -- with a highly skewed and selected group of
instructors and a very narrow and uncritical selections of topics and
reading resources is in practice little more than a form of ideological
indoctrination, including I should and regrettably say as being executed by
Civil Society organizations along with others.

Good policy, policy analysis and policy development comes from a deep and
widely informed reflection on a range of issues and perspectives and having
a critical approach and understanding of the issues and their broad
socio-political and economic contexts (much beyond that which is being
presented by the current Internet policy establishment). An "open" and
critical approach to policy analysis and development is of absolute
necessity if the interests of the broad range of nations and populations in
the world and particularly those for whom CS has traditionally been
representative, are to be adequately accounted for.

M


-----Original Message----
From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of
Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: April 13, 2015 2:23 AM
To: forum at justnetcoalition.org; Ian Peter; nnenna75 at gmail.com
Cc: Anne Jellema
Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS
- apologies for short time frame

Dear all

I am on a panel on the last day of the event on Internet Governance. I will
definitely raise the issue of how important it is to work with the existing
intergovernmental system and the UN system.

As I have said previously, the multistakeholder approach should be a way of
building more inclusion and democracy into internet governance and serve as
a mechanism for engaging governments rather than bypassing governments.

Other thoughts from you would be helpful, and I will pick up on Nnenna's
opening statement.

The panel outline:


Parallel Session : Internet governance - Global Cooperation for a
Sustainable Future

Internet governance impacts on the three themes of GCCS2015: freedom,
security and growth.
This session will focus on five key interrelated initiatives and events
which are paving the way forward for the Internet governance ecosystem:

    the NETmundial multistakeholder statement on Internet governance
principles and the roadmap for the future evolution of Internet governance;
    the IANA Stewardship Transition to the global Internet community of the
coordination and management of the Internet domain name system (DNS) and
enhancement of ICANN's accountability;
    the Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG);
    the NETmundial Initiative;
    the UN General Assembly High Level Event in December 2015 on the review
of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS) (2003-2005) as well as on the renewal of the mandate of the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Best

Anriette



On 13/04/2015 09:36, Richard Hill wrote:
> Dear Nenna,
> 
> Thank you for this. I had strongly supported Parminder's statement
regarding why shun the UN, so it is not just him calling for that.
> 
> I would encourage you to make that point in your four-minute 
> statement,
and in fact I think that it should be added to the consolidated input from
civil society.
> 
> Thanks again and best,
> Richard
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of
Nnenna Nwakanma
>   Sent: samedi, 11. avril 2015 22:17
>   To: Ian Peter
>   Cc: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Anne Jellema; Governance; JNC Forum
>   Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement 
> for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
> 
> 
>   Many thanks, Ian
> 
> 
>   This will come in handy in developing a 4-minute keynote.  I Will 
> see
how many of the key pints I can incorporate. have been further informed that
keynote speakers are to keep to specific themes and mine will be "bridging
the digital divide; freedom and privacy online".
> 
> 
>   Granted, it will be important to stress the respect of human rights 
> and
all of that, but I am convinced that the Parminder question of "why are you
shying away from more democratic UN-led instances?" on the process may still
need to be asked.  From the suggestion from organisers, Fadi Chehade will be
the one speaking on "Internet Governance"
> 
> 
>   Still listening here
> 
> 
>   N
> 
> 
> 
>   On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
wrote:
> 
>     >Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
> 
>     Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair's statement when 
> finalised will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/
> 
>     But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign
ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and
trying to be "multistakeholder" for the first time. But this does not (yet)
extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs
to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs across
stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...
> 
> 
>     Ian
> 
>     From: Anne Jellema 
>     Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
>     To: Ian Peter 
>     Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; 
> JNC
Forum 
>     Subject: Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - 
> apologies for short time frame
> 
>     Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
>     Best
>     Anne
> 
>     On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter 
> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
wrote:
> 
>       Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with
comments and suggestions.
> 
>       I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the
Dutch organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the
process is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the
various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week. However
at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather
discussion limited to red line text.
> 
>       This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised 
> with
48 hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about
40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and
left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and
submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we
trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and
viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our suggestions
make it through to the final statement!
> 
>       Ian Peter
> 
>       From: Ian Peter 
>       Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
>       To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> ;
forum at justnetcoalition.org 
>       Subject: CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for 
> short time frame
> 
>       Dear friends,
> 
> 
> 
>       [Apologies for cross-posting]
> 
> 
> 
>       Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the
civil society response to the Chair's statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for
very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider
input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response
after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
comment on the consolidated response as per message below.
> 
> 
> 
>       Governments and business interests will also be responding to 
> the
text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are
some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need
to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But
please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address
below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil 
> society
input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
(GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and
taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015. 
> 
> 
> 
>       Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul
(2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015
event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level
discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes
of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking
event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges
and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business,
academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers
hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to
progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet. 
> 
> 
> 
>       Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in
cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a
meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on
facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an
effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting
Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The
Chair's Statement).
> 
> 
> 
>       <snip>
> 
> 
>       Ian Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       ____________________________________________________________
>       You received this message as 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  
>     +27 061 036 9352 (ZA)
> 
>     +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>     Twitter: @afjellema
>     PGP: 1640BED9
>     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.or
> g
> 

_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum at justnetcoalition.org
http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org




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

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Apr 13 14:19:38 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 20:19:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs
 Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
Message-ID: <iakmjw1j6od1r698q6j0yuv1.1428949178029@email.android.com>

Thanks for this Michael. Helpful.

Anriette


Sent from Samsung Mobile

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> </div><div>Date:13/04/2015  19:52  (GMT+02:00) </div><div>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org </div><div>Subject: RE: [governance] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame </div><div>
</div>Sorry, something was left out of the last sentence...

M

Anriette (and NNena),

I may have missed it but while the Hague meeting covers a range of topics
including some new ones I don't see anywhere where there is a discussion of
the social justice aspects or consequences of the Internet (apart from the
pro forma repetition of referencing to the "Digital Divide" and "access").
Equally and regrettably this can also be said for all of the other events
that you point to in your note below--NetMundial, NMI, etc.etc.

Accelerating income inequality, Internet supported loss of "good jobs", the
mad rush to the bottom in a range of employment areas which are shifting to
the global Internet platforms, the loss of health and safety protections in
the newly emerging forms of employment contracting, tax dodging, and so on
and so on all need to be addressed by global forums such as these and as a
matter of escalating urgency.

Equally, I would like to see some questioning of the prioritization of
"capacity building".  Admittedly, "capacity building" is of considerable
value and utility in areas with a very high technical component.  However,
the use of this model -- with a highly skewed and selected group of
instructors and a very narrow and uncritical selections of topics and
reading resources is in practice little more than a form of ideological
indoctrination, including I should and regrettably say as being executed by
Civil Society organizations along with others.

Good policy, policy analysis and policy development comes from a deep and
widely informed reflection on a range of issues and perspectives and having
a critical approach and understanding of the issues and their broad
socio-political and economic contexts (much beyond that which is being
presented by the current Internet policy establishment). An "open" and
critical approach to policy analysis and development is of absolute
necessity if the interests of the broad range of nations and populations in
the world and particularly those for whom CS has traditionally been
representative, are to be adequately accounted for.

M


-----Original Message----
From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of
Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: April 13, 2015 2:23 AM
To: forum at justnetcoalition.org; Ian Peter; nnenna75 at gmail.com
Cc: Anne Jellema
Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS
- apologies for short time frame

Dear all

I am on a panel on the last day of the event on Internet Governance. I will
definitely raise the issue of how important it is to work with the existing
intergovernmental system and the UN system.

As I have said previously, the multistakeholder approach should be a way of
building more inclusion and democracy into internet governance and serve as
a mechanism for engaging governments rather than bypassing governments.

Other thoughts from you would be helpful, and I will pick up on Nnenna's
opening statement.

The panel outline:


Parallel Session : Internet governance - Global Cooperation for a
Sustainable Future

Internet governance impacts on the three themes of GCCS2015: freedom,
security and growth.
This session will focus on five key interrelated initiatives and events
which are paving the way forward for the Internet governance ecosystem:

    the NETmundial multistakeholder statement on Internet governance
principles and the roadmap for the future evolution of Internet governance;
    the IANA Stewardship Transition to the global Internet community of the
coordination and management of the Internet domain name system (DNS) and
enhancement of ICANN's accountability;
    the Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG);
    the NETmundial Initiative;
    the UN General Assembly High Level Event in December 2015 on the review
of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS) (2003-2005) as well as on the renewal of the mandate of the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Best

Anriette



On 13/04/2015 09:36, Richard Hill wrote:
> Dear Nenna,
> 
> Thank you for this. I had strongly supported Parminder's statement
regarding why shun the UN, so it is not just him calling for that.
> 
> I would encourage you to make that point in your four-minute 
> statement,
and in fact I think that it should be added to the consolidated input from
civil society.
> 
> Thanks again and best,
> Richard
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of
Nnenna Nwakanma
>   Sent: samedi, 11. avril 2015 22:17
>   To: Ian Peter
>   Cc: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Anne Jellema; Governance; JNC Forum
>   Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement 
> for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
> 
> 
>   Many thanks, Ian
> 
> 
>   This will come in handy in developing a 4-minute keynote.  I Will 
> see
how many of the key pints I can incorporate. have been further informed that
keynote speakers are to keep to specific themes and mine will be "bridging
the digital divide; freedom and privacy online".
> 
> 
>   Granted, it will be important to stress the respect of human rights 
> and
all of that, but I am convinced that the Parminder question of "why are you
shying away from more democratic UN-led instances?" on the process may still
need to be asked.  From the suggestion from organisers, Fadi Chehade will be
the one speaking on "Internet Governance"
> 
> 
>   Still listening here
> 
> 
>   N
> 
> 
> 
>   On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
wrote:
> 
>     >Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
> 
>     Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair's statement when 
> finalised will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/
> 
>     But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign
ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and
trying to be "multistakeholder" for the first time. But this does not (yet)
extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs
to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs across
stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...
> 
> 
>     Ian
> 
>     From: Anne Jellema 
>     Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
>     To: Ian Peter 
>     Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; 
> JNC
Forum 
>     Subject: Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - 
> apologies for short time frame
> 
>     Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
>     Best
>     Anne
> 
>     On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter 
> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
wrote:
> 
>       Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with
comments and suggestions.
> 
>       I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the
Dutch organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the
process is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the
various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week. However
at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather
discussion limited to red line text.
> 
>       This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised 
> with
48 hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about
40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and
left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and
submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we
trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and
viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our suggestions
make it through to the final statement!
> 
>       Ian Peter
> 
>       From: Ian Peter 
>       Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
>       To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> ;
forum at justnetcoalition.org 
>       Subject: CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for 
> short time frame
> 
>       Dear friends,
> 
> 
> 
>       [Apologies for cross-posting]
> 
> 
> 
>       Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the
civil society response to the Chair's statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for
very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider
input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response
after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
comment on the consolidated response as per message below.
> 
> 
> 
>       Governments and business interests will also be responding to 
> the
text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are
some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need
to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But
please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address
below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil 
> society
input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
(GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and
taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015. 
> 
> 
> 
>       Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul
(2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015
event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level
discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes
of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking
event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges
and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business,
academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers
hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to
progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet. 
> 
> 
> 
>       Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in
cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a
meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on
facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an
effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting
Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The
Chair's Statement).
> 
> 
> 
>       <snip>
> 
> 
>       Ian Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       ____________________________________________________________
>       You received this message as 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  
>     +27 061 036 9352 (ZA)
> 
>     +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>     Twitter: @afjellema
>     PGP: 1640BED9
>     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.or
> g
> 

_______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150413/65cc53f5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 13 15:10:30 2015
From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:10:30 +0300
Subject: [governance] pls vote for GDCO,,, ICANN,,, GEZIRA to win WSIS 2015
 prize
Message-ID: <CACKazKq3maH-R9Ao0aiKVL1MjYGHg-nFjhUEnm__MdNdxWYPoA@mail.gmail.com>

http://api.ning.com/files/v6wcuBb1nvsBk0GCs-ydlkRbEGmUoVAyT6YmjxPV-sGU4PXSFa8rVNmolQrIv7eB8momNcM6Jg-gEfV*lApVBmnrgii59BSh/voteenglishWSISfull.pdf


*Vote Arabic and English*


http://api.ning.com/files/v6wcuBb1nvt1VbXoaRb6lyXImQuLclcSpL6G1mo72eeG*UYpeKsJyNzu3n4-o*Q6sD352XPLjtSK5xlZnpg9xRy53huCboyq/VOTE4WSISenarquick.pdf


*more information*

http://www.unite-it.eu/profiles/blogs/voting-for-gdco-sudan-telecentres-wsis-2015-prize


*read more about GDCO Sudan*

http://seepcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/gdco-sudan-and-telecentres-movement-promote-for-ict


*AHMED EISA chair of GDCO  C.V.*

http://api.ning.com/files/vRWi3e17RGrQ*scE8S6Eklb3TEx5Xzu23H0kbsnz8hEV*q*zRKyxOXe5M8nnAJEpix*SHA18MpMWN34e2zJm5eg2rHVivkyD/AhmedMahmoudMohamedEisa.pdf

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150413/f66cf546/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Apr 13 17:13:18 2015
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:13:18 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] FW: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs
 Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <1f3601d07610$afa1df80$0ee59e80$@gmail.com>
References: <LPEDLFMPHEAFCAMJJICEEEANCBAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
 <552B8AF1.5040700@apc.org> <1f1501d07610$6a96dad0$3fc49070$@gmail.com>
 <1f3601d07610$afa1df80$0ee59e80$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1490159088.31504.1428959598794.JavaMail.www@wwinf1c13>

Thanks Michael

 

for these useful clarifications and comments which I fully agree with.

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack

 

 

 

 

 

> Message du 13/04/15 19:39
> De : "Michael Gurstein" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] FW: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
> 
> Anriette (and NNena),
> 
> I may have missed it but while the Hague meeting covers a range of topics
> including some new ones I don't see anywhere where there is a discussion of
> the social justice aspects or consequences of the Internet (apart from the
> pro forma repetition of referencing to the "Digital Divide" and "access").
> Equally and regrettably this can also be said for all of the other events
> that you point to in your note below--NetMundial, NMI, etc.etc.
> 
> Accelerating income inequality, Internet supported loss of "good jobs", the
> mad rush to the bottom in a range of employment areas which are shifting to
> the global Internet platforms, the loss of health and safety protections in
> the newly emerging forms of employment contracting, tax dodging, and so on
> and so on all need to be addressed by global forums such as these and as a
> matter of escalating urgency.
> 
> Equally, I would like to see some questioning of the prioritization of
> "capacity building". Admittedly, "capacity building" is of considerable
> value and utility in areas with a very high technical component. However,
> the use of this model -- with a highly skewed and selected group of
> instructors and a very narrow and uncritical selections of topics and
> reading resources is in practice little more than a form of ideological
> indoctrination, including I should and regrettably say as being executed by
> Civil Society organizations along with others.
> 
> Good policy, policy analysis and policy development comes from a deep and
> widely informed reflection on a range of issues and perspectives and having
> a critical approach and understanding of the issues and their broad
> socio-political and economic contexts (much beyond that which is being
> presented by the current Internet policy establishment) is of absolute
> necessity if the interests of the broad range of nations and populations in
> the world and particularly those for whom CS has traditionally been
> representative, are to be adequately accounted for.
> 
> M
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----
> From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: April 13, 2015 2:23 AM
> To: forum at justnetcoalition.org; Ian Peter; nnenna75 at gmail.com
> Cc: Anne Jellema
> Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS
> - apologies for short time frame
> 
> Dear all
> 
> I am on a panel on the last day of the event on Internet Governance. I will
> definitely raise the issue of how important it is to work with the existing
> intergovernmental system and the UN system.
> 
> As I have said previously, the multistakeholder approach should be a way of
> building more inclusion and democracy into internet governance and serve as
> a mechanism for engaging governments rather than bypassing governments.
> 
> Other thoughts from you would be helpful, and I will pick up on Nnenna's
> opening statement.
> 
> The panel outline:
> 
> 
> Parallel Session : Internet governance - Global Cooperation for a
> Sustainable Future
> 
> Internet governance impacts on the three themes of GCCS2015: freedom,
> security and growth.
> This session will focus on five key interrelated initiatives and events
> which are paving the way forward for the Internet governance ecosystem:
> 
> the NETmundial multistakeholder statement on Internet governance
> principles and the roadmap for the future evolution of Internet governance;
> the IANA Stewardship Transition to the global Internet community of the
> coordination and management of the Internet domain name system (DNS) and
> enhancement of ICANN's accountability;
> the Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG);
> the NETmundial Initiative;
> the UN General Assembly High Level Event in December 2015 on the review
> of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
> Society (WSIS) (2003-2005) as well as on the renewal of the mandate of the
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
> 
> Best
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> 
> On 13/04/2015 09:36, Richard Hill wrote:
> > Dear Nenna,
> > 
> > Thank you for this. I had strongly supported Parminder's statement
> regarding why shun the UN, so it is not just him calling for that.
> > 
> > I would encourage you to make that point in your four-minute 
> > statement,
> and in fact I think that it should be added to the consolidated input from
> civil society.
> > 
> > Thanks again and best,
> > Richard
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> > Sent: samedi, 11. avril 2015 22:17
> > To: Ian Peter
> > Cc: ; Anne Jellema; Governance; JNC Forum
> > Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement 
> > for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
> > 
> > 
> > Many thanks, Ian
> > 
> > 
> > This will come in handy in developing a 4-minute keynote. I Will 
> > see
> how many of the key pints I can incorporate. have been further informed that
> keynote speakers are to keep to specific themes and mine will be "bridging
> the digital divide; freedom and privacy online".
> > 
> > 
> > Granted, it will be important to stress the respect of human rights 
> > and
> all of that, but I am convinced that the Parminder question of "why are you
> shying away from more democratic UN-led instances?" on the process may still
> need to be asked. From the suggestion from organisers, Fadi Chehade will be
> the one speaking on "Internet Governance"
> > 
> > 
> > Still listening here
> > 
> > 
> > N
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ian Peter 
> wrote:
> > 
> > >Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
> > 
> > Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair's statement when 
> > finalised will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/
> > 
> > But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign
> ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and
> trying to be "multistakeholder" for the first time. But this does not (yet)
> extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs
> to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs across
> stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...
> > 
> > 
> > Ian
> > 
> > From: Anne Jellema 
> > Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
> > To: Ian Peter 
> > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; 
> > JNC
> Forum 
> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - 
> > apologies for short time frame
> > 
> > Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
> > Best
> > Anne
> > 
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter 
> > 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks to everyone (about 40 people) who responded to this with
> comments and suggestions.
> > 
> > I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the
> Dutch organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the
> process is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the
> various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week. However
> at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather
> discussion limited to red line text.
> > 
> > This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised 
> > with
> 48 hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about
> 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and
> left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and
> submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we
> trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and
> viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our suggestions
> make it through to the final statement!
> > 
> > Ian Peter
> > 
> > From: Ian Peter 
> > Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> > ;
> forum at justnetcoalition.org 
> > Subject: CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for 
> > short time frame
> > 
> > Dear friends,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Apologies for cross-posting]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the
> civil society response to the Chair's statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for
> very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider
> input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response
> after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
> comment on the consolidated response as per message below.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Governments and business interests will also be responding to 
> > the
> text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are
> some (surprisingly) good sections of the text currently (IMHO) that we need
> to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But
> please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address
> below.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil 
> > society
> input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
> (GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and
> taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul
> (2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015
> event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level
> discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes
> of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking
> event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges
> and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business,
> academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers
> hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to
> progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in
> cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a
> meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on
> facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an
> effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting
> Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The
> Chair's Statement).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Ian Peter
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as 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 
> > +27 061 036 9352 (ZA)
> > 
> > +1 202 684 6885 (US)
> > Twitter: @afjellema
> > PGP: 1640BED9
> > 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.or
> > g
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150413/5b447fa9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Apr 13 21:20:43 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:20:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] LACIGF Survey
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5yS=CZjLM+8UWxvPr2=BKGzsnGJrg3BEx4gMv=0uVinQ@mail.gmail.com>

IGC members in Latin America and the Caribbean may be interested (if they
haven't done it already) to complete this survey
 http://www.lacnic.net.uy/vote/index.php?sid=25927&lang=en
created by LACNIC as part of the planning process for this year's Latin
America and Caribbean preparatory meeting for the Internet Governance Forum
(LACIGF)
There were technical difficulties on the site so the deadline is extended
to Friday 17th April.

Deirdre




>
>
>
>
>
>   --
>  [image: Embedded Image]
>  *María Gayo*
> Coordinadora de Comunicaciones
> Communications Coordinator
> *# 4206*
>  [image: Embedded Image]
>
> *Casa de Internet de Latinoamérica y el Caribe*
> Rambla Rep. de México 6125
> 11400 Montevideo-Uruguay
> +598 2604 22 22 www.lacnic.net
>



 --
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979


-- 


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150413/26c08679/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int  Tue Apr 14 03:41:19 2015
From: Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int (WIELOCH Marta)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:41:19 +0000
Subject: [governance] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on
 Internet freedom
In-Reply-To: <FDCCC1284A0C864495CAAECEDBCA019DE8750E@V-Linguistix01.key.coe.int>
References: <FDCCC1284A0C864495CAAECEDBCA019DE86146@V-Linguistix01.key.coe.int>
 <FDCCC1284A0C864495CAAECEDBCA019DE86A5B@V-Linguistix01.key.coe.int>
 <FDCCC1284A0C864495CAAECEDBCA019DE8750E@V-Linguistix01.key.coe.int>
Message-ID: <FDCCC1284A0C864495CAAECEDBCA019DE8755E@V-Linguistix01.key.coe.int>

Dear all,

The Council of Europe is working on a draft recommendation by the Committee of Ministers to its member states on Internet freedom (attached). The draft is currently being elaborated by a committee of experts operating  under the authority of the Council of Europe's Steering Committee on Media and Information Society.

As part of its multi-stakeholder outreach and dialogue, the Council of Europe would like your feedback, comments and suggestions on the draft recommendation to be sent to us, at the latest by 30 April 2015,  by E-mail to Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int<mailto:Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int> .

Thank you in advance

Marta Wieloch
Media & Internet
Council of Europe
+ 33 (0) 3 90 21 55 81
marta.wieloch at coe.int<mailto:marta.wieloch at coe.int>
[cid:image001.png at 01D03F0E.4AD6FD80]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Information-Society-Group/771851256242082?fref=ts>[cid:image002.png at 01D00B04.68105560]<https://twitter.com/elvanathaci>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150414/6882d55f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1447 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150414/6882d55f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 895 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150414/6882d55f/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft Internet Freedom 01 05 15.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 127856 bytes
Desc: Draft Internet Freedom 01 05 15.pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150414/6882d55f/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Tue Apr 14 03:54:40 2015
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:54:40 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs
 Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <iakmjw1j6od1r698q6j0yuv1.1428949178029@email.android.com>
References: <iakmjw1j6od1r698q6j0yuv1.1428949178029@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <1598544271.4391.1428998080486.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h32>

Dear Anriette

 

Indeed ! It is.

 

But IMHO it's more than helpful : it's an indispensable complement and reminder for APC to values and fundamentals of CS activism. At least if APC is willing to stay in the CS militant camp.

Having in mind some commun souvenirs from WSIS PrepComs I do hope it is the case ...

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack

  

 

 

 

 

> Message du 13/04/15 21:07
> De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Michael Gurstein" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : RE: [governance] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
> 
>

 
Thanks for this Michael. Helpful.

>
Anriette

>

>

Sent from Samsung Mobile



> 
>
-------- Original message --------
From: Michael Gurstein 
Date:13/04/2015 19:52 (GMT+02:00)
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: RE: [governance] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame

>
Sorry, something was left out of the last sentence...
> 
> M
> 
> Anriette (and NNena),
> 
> I may have missed it but while the Hague meeting covers a range of topics
> including some new ones I don't see anywhere where there is a discussion of
> the social justice aspects or consequences of the Internet (apart from the
> pro forma repetition of referencing to the "Digital Divide" and "access").
> Equally and regrettably this can also be said for all of the other events
> that you point to in your note below--NetMundial, NMI, etc.etc.
> 
> Accelerating income inequality, Internet supported loss of "good jobs", the
> mad rush to the bottom in a range of employment areas which are shifting to
> the global Internet platforms, the loss of health and safety protections in
> the newly emerging forms of employment contracting, tax dodging, and so on
> and so on all need to be addressed by global forums such as these and as a
> matter of escalating urgency.
> 
> Equally, I would like to see some questioning of the prioritization of
> "capacity building".  Admittedly, "capacity building" is of considerable
> value and utility in areas with a very high technical component.  However,
> the use of this model -- with a highly skewed and selected group of
> instructors and a very narrow and uncritical selections of topics and
> reading resources is in practice little more than a form of ideological
> indoctrination, including I should and regrettably say as being executed by
> Civil Society organizations along with others.
> 
> Good policy, policy analysis and policy development comes from a deep and
> widely informed reflection on a range of issues and perspectives and having
> a critical approach and understanding of the issues and their broad
> socio-political and economic contexts (much beyond that which is being
> presented by the current Internet policy establishment). An "open" and
> critical approach to policy analysis and development is of absolute
> necessity if the interests of the broad range of nations and populations in
> the world and particularly those for whom CS has traditionally been
> representative, are to be adequately accounted for.
> 
> M
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----
> From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: April 13, 2015 2:23 AM
> To: forum at justnetcoalition.org; Ian Peter; nnenna75 at gmail.com
> Cc: Anne Jellema
> Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS
> - apologies for short time frame
> 
> Dear all
> 
> I am on a panel on the last day of the event on Internet Governance. I will
> definitely raise the issue of how important it is to work with the existing
> intergovernmental system and the UN system.
> 
> As I have said previously, the multistakeholder approach should be a way of
> building more inclusion and democracy into internet governance and serve as
> a mechanism for engaging governments rather than bypassing governments.
> 
> Other thoughts from you would be helpful, and I will pick up on Nnenna's
> opening statement.
> 
> The panel outline:
> 
> 
> Parallel Session : Internet governance - Global Cooperation for a
> Sustainable Future
> 
> Internet governance impacts on the three themes of GCCS2015: freedom,
> security and growth.
> This session will focus on five key interrelated initiatives and events
> which are paving the way forward for the Internet governance ecosystem:
> 
>     the NETmundial multistakeholder statement on Internet governance
> principles and the roadmap for the future evolution of Internet governance;
>     the IANA Stewardship Transition to the global Internet community of the
> coordination and management of the Internet domain name system (DNS) and
> enhancement of ICANN's accountability;
>     the Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG);
>     the NETmundial Initiative;
>     the UN General Assembly High Level Event in December 2015 on the review
> of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
> Society (WSIS) (2003-2005) as well as on the renewal of the mandate of the
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
> 
> Best
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> 
> On 13/04/2015 09:36, Richard Hill wrote:
> > Dear Nenna,
> > 
> > Thank you for this. I had strongly supported Parminder's statement
> regarding why shun the UN, so it is not just him calling for that.
> > 
> > I would encourage you to make that point in your four-minute 
> > statement,
> and in fact I think that it should be added to the consolidated input from
> civil society.
> > 
> > Thanks again and best,
> > Richard
> >   -----Original Message-----
> >   From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> >   Sent: samedi, 11. avril 2015 22:17
> >   To: Ian Peter
> >   Cc: ; Anne Jellema; Governance; JNC Forum
> >   Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement 
> > for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
> > 
> > 
> >   Many thanks, Ian
> > 
> > 
> >   This will come in handy in developing a 4-minute keynote.  I Will 
> > see
> how many of the key pints I can incorporate. have been further informed that
> keynote speakers are to keep to specific themes and mine will be "bridging
> the digital divide; freedom and privacy online".
> > 
> > 
> >   Granted, it will be important to stress the respect of human rights 
> > and
> all of that, but I am convinced that the Parminder question of "why are you
> shying away from more democratic UN-led instances?" on the process may still
> need to be asked.  From the suggestion from organisers, Fadi Chehade will be
> the one speaking on "Internet Governance"
> > 
> > 
> >   Still listening here
> > 
> > 
> >   N
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ian Peter 
> wrote:
> > 
> >     >Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
> > 
> >     Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair's statement when 
> > finalised will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/
> > 
> >     But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign
> ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and
> trying to be "multistakeholder" for the first time. But this does not (yet)
> extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs
> to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs across
> stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...
> > 
> > 
> >     Ian
> > 
> >     From: Anne Jellema 
> >     Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
> >     To: Ian Peter 
> >     Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; 
> > JNC
> Forum 
> >     Subject: Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - 
> > apologies for short time frame
> > 
> >     Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
> >     Best
> >     Anne
> > 
> >     On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter 
> > 
> wrote:
> > 
> >       Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with
> comments and suggestions.
> > 
> >       I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the
> Dutch organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the
> process is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the
> various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week. However
> at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather
> discussion limited to red line text.
> > 
> >       This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised 
> > with
> 48 hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about
> 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and
> left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and
> submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we
> trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and
> viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our suggestions
> make it through to the final statement!
> > 
> >       Ian Peter
> > 
> >       From: Ian Peter 
> >       Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
> >       To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> > ;
> forum at justnetcoalition.org 
> >       Subject: CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for 
> > short time frame
> > 
> >       Dear friends,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       [Apologies for cross-posting]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the
> civil society response to the Chair's statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for
> very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider
> input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response
> after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
> comment on the consolidated response as per message below.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       Governments and business interests will also be responding to 
> > the
> text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are
> some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need
> to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But
> please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address
> below.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil 
> > society
> input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
> (GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and
> taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul
> (2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015
> event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level
> discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes
> of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking
> event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges
> and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business,
> academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers
> hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to
> progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in
> cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a
> meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on
> facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an
> effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting
> Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The
> Chair's Statement).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       
> > 
> > 
> >       Ian Peter
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       ____________________________________________________________
> >       You received this message as 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  
> >     +27 061 036 9352 (ZA)
> > 
> >     +1 202 684 6885 (US)
> >     Twitter: @afjellema
> >     PGP: 1640BED9
> >     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.or
> > g
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150414/22aba103/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 15 23:30:23 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:30:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Why I'm Giving Up on the Digital Divide
In-Reply-To: <096701d077f5$675c75f0$361561d0$@gmail.com>
References: <096701d077f5$675c75f0$361561d0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <098401d077f5$acf9f6a0$06ede3e0$@gmail.com>

Folks might find this of interest (and comments are of course welcome.

 

https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-di
vide/

 

M

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150415/deeaf3ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 05:59:52 2015
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:59:52 +0000
Subject: [governance] GCCS Speech
Message-ID: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>

Attached
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/f1c2da74/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GCCS 2015 Nnenna Speech.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19922 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/f1c2da74/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From trieste at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 06:02:22 2015
From: trieste at gmail.com (Demi Getschko)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:02:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPpr7OWHLGKpJEr40xZxE-weqnPTON9WUDuO7mrAZr+njTmX0g@mail.gmail.com>

Congrats, Nnenna! Great speech - as usual!
best
demi


On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Attached
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/d6bddee6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu Apr 16 06:03:14 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:03:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B02AE503-59BD-43DA-B2CB-47F6271F6FE8@consensus.pro>

Nnenna, as usual, you were in a class by yourself despite the other speakers being good. It was an inspiration!

> On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Attached
> 
> 
> <GCCS 2015 Nnenna Speech.docx>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/7c9ca9cb/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From compsoftnet at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 06:07:14 2015
From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:07:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <B02AE503-59BD-43DA-B2CB-47F6271F6FE8@consensus.pro>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<B02AE503-59BD-43DA-B2CB-47F6271F6FE8@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAGK4d0-qG+Wm6XG4wPhYonw4rsJFRq1_zxJHXwXcTTPajK0vRA@mail.gmail.com>

Good speech Nnenna!!!!

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
wrote:

> Nnenna, as usual, you were in a class by yourself despite the other
> speakers being good. It was an inspiration!
>
> > On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Attached
> >
> >
> > <GCCS 2015 Nnenna
> Speech.docx>____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as 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
>
>


-- 
Akinremi Peter Taiwo
IT Specialist/Consultant
Compsoftnet Enterprise
Nigeria
Phone: +2347063830177
twitter: @compsoftnet
Skype: akinremi.peter
blog: compsoftnet.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/8d2e2be7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 06:12:35 2015
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand De La Chapelle)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:12:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5FCD417C-7693-424A-A801-A2CCC4CD3962@gmail.com>

Kudos Nenna,

A great speech.

As usual, a fresh, candid but also focused message.

AAA :-)

B.



Sent from my iPhone

> On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Attached
> 
> 
> <GCCS 2015 Nnenna Speech.docx>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Thu Apr 16 06:40:23 2015
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:40:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <5FCD417C-7693-424A-A801-A2CCC4CD3962@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5FCD417C-7693-424A-A801-A2CCC4CD3962@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwrTj+K8gAWiTnJx2CYvOtM5deHs9d0QhSrx7+6Af20T1w@mail.gmail.com>

The Internet for everyone. A strong mantra really.
"All of the People should be able to access all the Internet all of the
time" - @nnenna

Great representation for the CS. Thank you Nnenna

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson


On 16 April 2015 at 12:12, Bertrand De La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Kudos Nenna,
>
> A great speech.
>
> As usual, a fresh, candid but also focused message.
>
> AAA :-)
>
> B.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Attached
> >
> >
> > <GCCS 2015 Nnenna Speech.docx>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/5de30934/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 06:44:49 2015
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:44:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Global Net Neutrality Coalition Hague Meetup
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeESGKjx6z+n-s4MMAQkKOBg=F8VMcp=MiGk71CqhgJQhg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone,

We'd like to gather folks from the Global Net Neutrality Coalition
<https://www.thisisnetneutrality.org/>

 to catch up at GCCS, provide updates, and talk about whatever else suits
people's fancy.



*Time: 14:00- 14.45hours on Thursday, 4/16 (today)Place: Bilateral room 10
(Everest 2)* -(This room is on the second floor. On the app you can see the
map of the location).

Can you make it?

We've created an Etherpad here for people to follow along:
https://pad.riseup.net/p/gnn-hague-meeting



​P.S- Please feel free to join us if you are interested to join the
coalition or learn more about the Coalition.​

--

Best Regards,
​​
*Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito

Twitter: @ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/465a6ea3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Thu Apr 16 07:06:10 2015
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:06:10 +0200
Subject: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net>

Hi Nnenna from the Internet,

1_______________
Could you please elaborate what means the following sentence in your speech? I am not sure to see which democratic processes you are referring to in the current pro US status-quo multiskateholder game? Or did you mean are here to stay out of the MS mess?
Openness and democratic processes entrenched in multi-stakeholder engagement are here to stay.

2________________
And what do you mean when you write the following?
"Therefore we need to grow, be more open and inclusive. And we must uphold, promote, engage with, and maintain processes like the IGF, the NetMundial and the IANA transition." 

in particular you call for upholding and promoting processes like the NetMundial? Do you support the high-jacking of the Sao Paulo meeting by the ICANN/WEF and CGI.br? What in your mind deserves to be promoted (and not denounced) regarding the long-expected IANA transition to ICANN? Another great democratic transition I presume. Also please indicate why you do not mention another great initiative that is the Internet Social Forum. Is it because it is so "civil society', having therefore too much baggage to engage with, or because it is not multistakeholder according to your open and democratic MS standards, or because you are concerned that the public policy global debate about the Internet would step out of the usual sandbox where everyone seems to enjoy listening to the same old song (with interesting variations, I can concede that to you when reading all your "I am from the Internet" speeches).


3________________
It is always good to start mentioning in such a speech the bad guys (Arab countries, Turkey, Russia, China...) as you might not feel comfortable to mention the one posing the greatest threat to all others (see what I mean, or maybe you need a pointer?). Denouncing an omnibus of democratic countries competing for mass surveillance is simply non sense. If so all governments are definitely evil (apart the US of course). Among them, none except the US can be seen as a serious cyber threat to all citizens around the planet. Why pointing to these bad guys, and not naming Caesar (see the country with so many good generous sponsors( see below).

4________________
Why to quote a report by the Alliance for Affordable Internet (AAI), when for years, we have had access to the same data at the ITU? Oh, I forgot, the AAI is multistakeholder-friendly, it regroups the good guys: the US State Department, Cisco, APC, Facebook, CGI.br, Google, Intel, ISOC, Microsoft, the Swedish Foreign Affairs, USAid, others, and of course your World Wide Web Foodation... And ITU is part of the villain, the power-grab people...

5________________
It would be good to define of which part of the Internet you come from (if it wasn't clear enough for some of us here)? Can you tell us how intertwined the organization you report to  is benefiting from these generous sponsors?

It seems that there is a large stretch between all of these words and their behinds, and what would be an honest independent CS position defending a true affordable access for citizens of the planet who do not have access yet. Have you noticed the failure of Facebook initiative in India for an Affordable Internet Access? How come?

This is all very embarrassing.

JC


Le 16 avr. 2015 à 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit :

> Attached
> 
> 
> <GCCS 2015 Nnenna Speech.docx>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/050fad12/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr  Thu Apr 16 07:30:23 2015
From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:30:23 +0100
Subject: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1429183823.14505.YahooMailBasic@web133201.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

Merci Nnenna, 

Tu as fait un excellent discours.

Best
NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul
TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY

ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT
Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président


Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général


Skype : jpnkurunziz

Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza
Tel : +257 79 981459

--------------------------------------------
En date de : Jeu 16.4.15, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> a écrit :

 Objet: [governance] GCCS Speech
 À: "Governance" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, "members" <members at mail.fossfa.net>
 Date: Jeudi 16 avril 2015, 11h59
 
 Attached
 
 
 
 
 -----La pièce jointe associée suit-----
 
 ____________________________________________________________
 You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
 To be removed from the list, visit:
      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
 
 For all other list information and functions, see:
      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
 To edit your 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 glaser at cgi.br  Thu Apr 16 07:48:33 2015
From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 08:48:33 -0300
Subject: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <552FA191.3040903@cgi.br>


Dear Nnenna

Splendit ...., phantastic ..., wonderful ...!

Congratulations ...!

Hartmut Glaser

======================================
On 16/04/15 06:59, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
> Attached
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/8b017bc6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu Apr 16 07:59:24 2015
From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:59:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <1429183823.14505.YahooMailBasic@web133201.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1429183823.14505.YahooMailBasic@web133201.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAMc__orghGG0QHse5O3WmRroODeggyorzkSArRyyWaiXiAcWZw@mail.gmail.com>

Weldone Nnenna

Remmy Nweke
@ITRealms

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA <
nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Merci Nnenna,
>
> Tu as fait un excellent discours.
>
> Best
> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul
> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY
>
> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT
> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président
>
>
> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général
>
>
> Skype : jpnkurunziz
>
> Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza
> Tel : +257 79 981459
>
> --------------------------------------------
> En date de : Jeu 16.4.15, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>  Objet: [governance] GCCS Speech
>  À: "Governance" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "<
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, "members" <
> members at mail.fossfa.net>
>  Date: Jeudi 16 avril 2015, 11h59
>
>  Attached
>
>
>
>
>  -----La pièce jointe associée suit-----
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
[Member, NIRA Executive Board]
Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
<https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria>
NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 <
http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 4
Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 <http://www.ipv6forumnigeria.com.ng
<http://www.ipv6forumnigeria.ng>> - June 5
@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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/97005183/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Thu Apr 16 08:33:54 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:33:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYp3BUh_1ASPctDJPdisidyPH5iAfpMT6kK32E8opHn0Vw@mail.gmail.com>

Bravo Nnenna. Continue.
Louis

en P.J. pour info, un texte inclus dans « Journées Jeunesse et
Développement en Afrique » 10/11 février 2015 à l'Unesco Paris.

- - -

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Attached
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/8ea606af/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 150211_Unesco UISF-2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 23040 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/8ea606af/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 09:46:55 2015
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:46:55 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPFLqfbwat4upXbYtbAbGkO1XG=gHZE28h0AQg4hNxPW9g@mail.gmail.com>

Was powerful.

WISDOM DONKOR
Sosftware / Network Engineer
Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh


On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Attached
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/c3710665/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 16 10:49:20 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:49:20 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] GCCS Speech
References:  <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5FCD417C-7693-424A-A801-A2CCC4CD3962@gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642D97@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

As i said in London : N. is the IG rockstar.


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Bertrand De La Chapelle
Gesendet: Do 16.04.2015 12:12
An: Nnenna Nwakanma
Cc: Governance; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; members
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] GCCS Speech
 
Kudos Nenna,

A great speech.

As usual, a fresh, candid but also focused message.

AAA :-)

B.



Sent from my iPhone

> On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Attached
> 
> 
> <GCCS 2015 Nnenna Speech.docx>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 norbertglakpe at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 11:13:18 2015
From: norbertglakpe at gmail.com (Norbert Komlan GLAKPE)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:13:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] [Members] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CAGC=n3LKv_BQ001uQf1hz5quqrLvJSCQsQDELHHO3mWqztHKbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGC=n3LKv_BQ001uQf1hz5quqrLvJSCQsQDELHHO3mWqztHKbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMVeOEWSRsTpY9TCB_uzckGTQ9io-U7y3+cqgKPWuRtOio3ntQ@mail.gmail.com>

Good Job Nnenna.

2015-04-16 12:56 GMT+02:00 Joel Gogwim <gogwim at gmail.com>:

> Very OK Nnenna!
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Attached
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Members mailing list
>> Members at mail.fossfa.net
>> http://mail.fossfa.net/mailman/listinfo/members
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at mail.fossfa.net
> http://mail.fossfa.net/mailman/listinfo/members
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/1f801def/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu Apr 16 11:53:54 2015
From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo))
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:53:54 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] [Members] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CAMVeOEWSRsTpY9TCB_uzckGTQ9io-U7y3+cqgKPWuRtOio3ntQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMVeOEWSRsTpY9TCB_uzckGTQ9io-U7y3+cqgKPWuRtOio3ntQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <914523515.5402406.1429199634458.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Though I missed the livestream, good to have the speech shared here.Let's work to provide the whole of the Internet to everyone, at anytime.
Regards,A
------------------------------------------------------Arsène Tungali,Co-founder and Executive Director, Rudi InternationalFounder, Mabingwa Forum
Work email: arsenebaguma at gmail.comFacebook - Twitter - LinkedInInternet Governance - Blogger - ISOC Member - ICANN Fellow - IGF Fellow.Democratic Republic of Congo 


     Le Jeudi 16 avril 2015 17h14, Norbert Komlan GLAKPE <norbertglakpe at gmail.com> a écrit :
   

 Good Job Nnenna. 

2015-04-16 12:56 GMT+02:00 Joel Gogwim <gogwim at gmail.com>:

Very OK Nnenna!


On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

Attached



_______________________________________________
Members mailing list
Members at mail.fossfa.net
http://mail.fossfa.net/mailman/listinfo/members




_______________________________________________
Members mailing list
Members at mail.fossfa.net
http://mail.fossfa.net/mailman/listinfo/members




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

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

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


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/77ac6b43/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 16:11:20 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:11:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Colleagues,

In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.

Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all recognise their
differences and their diversity but who, at the same time, all identify
themselves as belonging to civil society. I see them recognising the
potential weakening effect of those differences to the presentation of a
common approach, and therefore the desirability of a “civil society” space
for objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the
diversity towards what common position may be possible.

I wasn’t there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.

Within the context of this imaginary myth:

Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Many of us
were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel Pimienta suggested that we
might work on distilling it into a set of principles that, as civil
society, we could support. But we moved on to other things.

This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has stated what he
disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the speech. Other people
offered uncritical praise for what she had said. But we should not be
“uncritical” with our praise. It would be good to see some constructive
discussion of what she had to say.

Best wishes

Deirdre


On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Hi Nnenna from the Internet,
>
....
-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150416/83e644bc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 17 06:03:35 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:03:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Back From the Ashes? A Next Generation
 of ICT Regulations and Their Implications
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2Z-2+2vfqN42-EfkLXBVQtVbisrOUgEzfxARADpmES_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Another great policy event from our CITI colleagues.

 joly posted: "Today Tuesday March 31 2015 the Northeast DAS and Small Cell
Association’s (NEDAS) Third Annual Spring In-Building Wireless Summit
brings together leading industry executives, vendors, service providers and
end-users for learning, sharing, collaborating a"
WEBCAST TODAY – Back From the Ashes? A Next Generation of ICT Regulations
and Their Implications <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7716>

[image: Back from the Ashes]
<http://i2.wp.com/isoc-ny.org/p2/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/citi_ashes_170x255b.png>
Today* April 17th 2015 9:00am-5:30pm* the *Columbia Institute for
Tele-Information* <http://www.citicolumbia.org/>, in collaboration
with the *International
Telecommunications Society* <http://www.itsworld.org/>, presents*Back From
the Ashes? A Next Generation of ICT Regulations and Their Implications
<http://www.citicolumbia.org/events/2015/ashes.html>*at Columbia University
NYC. This Event/Workshop will cover the various regulatory aspects of
emerging next generation technology in the Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) sector. With the recent decision by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) rules on Open Internet or “Net Neutrality,”
the role of regulation in the ICT sector has once again been highlighted.
The ICT sector continues to undergo significant changes: OTT services are
proliferating; Google is pushing into the wireless sector and deploying
fiber in selected communities; the ubiquity of WiFi is encroaching on data
services offered by traditional cellular providers and some firms are
attempting to displace the voice cellular services with a network of WiFi.
A series of panels will examine the ICT policy implications. The event will
be webcast live via the *Internet Society livestream channel*
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/citi>.

*What*: Back From the Ashes? A Next Generation of ICT Regulations and Their
Implications <http://www.citicolumbia.org/events/2015/ashes.html>
*Where*: Columbia University NYC
*When*: Friday April 17 2015 9am-5pm EDT | 0500-1300 UTC
*Agenda*: http://www.citicolumbia.org/events/2015/ashes.html
*Webcast*: http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/citi
*Twitter*: #backfromtheashes
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23backfromtheashes&src=typd>




*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7716 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7695>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150417/871d9688/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 17 08:37:35 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:37:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS
Message-ID: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>

The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf

CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this


“The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”

I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will be more later.



Ian Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150417/78236dc6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Fri Apr 17 10:58:10 2015
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Collaboratory)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:58:10 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc26OfOyvX-20GTmFSm_vJkeeLZYhLoCkDCWVFA94Wy-zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba> <CAOa=Yc26OfOyvX-20GTmFSm_vJkeeLZYhLoCkDCWVFA94Wy-zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CBF2E9B6-600F-4C59-9B4D-0156F69FD9FB@collaboratory.de>

Yes please! The Minister literally said that Mexico had a long freedom of speech tradition and everyone in the room applauded. I think we need to set the record in a diplomatic way straight.
Lgl

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 17.04.2015 um 14:39 schrieb Renata Avila <renata.avila at webfoundation.org>:
> 
> I really think it will be also important to say something about next venue, for those who are not aware of the terrible violations of human rights by Mexico. 
> 
> R
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf
>>  
>> CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg inclusion of  privacy by design, and quotes like this
>>  
>>  
>> “The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”
>>  
>> I’m sure others will have things to report  from this event and there will be more later.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Ian Peter
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150417/dff85b43/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Fri Apr 17 11:40:36 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:40:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxhMH=v3oGoNYkMtq7q_PG6qMP9XRTzMAjyoGhwsnZmVg@mail.gmail.com>

There's a lot about how the big picture is falling into place behind
the scenes that this statement works to lead attention away from.

But I see the positive aspect of these proceedings for all of us "the
people" as deriving from an increasing general recognition of the
limits of how these things work and of how they're "faking it."


Seth

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at
> https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf
>
> CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference
> and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include
> disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and
> proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference
> to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg
> inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this
>
>
> “The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human
> rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and
> security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about
> those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for
> the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such
> violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without
> allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take
> full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as
> well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are
> fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”
>
> I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will be
> more later.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Apr 17 15:06:41 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:06:41 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com> <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net> <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com> <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain>
Message-ID: <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com>

Thanks for raising this issue Deidre but I’d like to broaden the discussion a bit and ask what is the actual or presumed “status” of the meeting and of its outcomes. 

The fact that it was convened by the Dutch government, that it was the fourth in a series, that many governments attended and that the meeting issued a final statement which is widely noted (and seems to be issued with the expectation that it will have some status more significant than an ordinary trade or sectoral meeting) suggests that the expectation is that the meeting has some sort of quasi-official status.  That it is in fact, meant to be one those increasing number of unofficial/official meetings of the form of the NetMundial; i.e. not quite on the level of the clearly “official” WSIS+10 but having a normative and quasi-official status rather more than say TED talks or an ordinary Internet technical convening.

And clearly the activities of the designated CS interlocutor(s) has been such as to give the appearance of something with some broader on-going significance as for example, by circulating the draft Outcome Document for comment and input. 

So I think that we can assume that the GCCS is meant to be one of those increasing stable of multistakeholder global Internet Governance unicorns whose intention is to replace more formal and “democratically constituted” global Internet Governance assemblies.  

 Why this matters of course, is because the clear intention is that this conference (and more importantly its’ “Chairman's Statement”) is meant to have a similar status to the NetMundial Outcome document i.e. something that is widely quoted, referred to and meant to have the form of some sort of soft international statement of guiding principles, deriving it’s legitimacy directly from the fact of its multistakeholder origination and authentication through the multistakeholder plenaries etc. of the meeting itself.

The question of course is what legitimacy does this conference have on its own terms as a “multistakeholder” process and thus what significance or legitimacy can its outcome statement have beyond being a statement by certain individuals selected on the basis of non-transparent critieria, with no accountability to anyone other than the funders, and thus presumably selected and designed to reinforce and ratify already existing positions as determined by the conference organizers.

The process of facilitating Civil Society participation completely lacked transparency and accountability to any agency outside of the organizational and decision making processes of the conference itself presumably under the direct supervision of the sponsoring governmental bodies.

The facilitation of CS participation through control over travel funding and the holding of the editorial pen in CS contributions would appear to have been directed by the representative or representatives of organizations which get their primary funding from one or another of the main governmental sponsors of these meetings. 

The Advisory Board, presumably selected on the advice of this individual or individuals is notably not broadly representative of CS in the Internet Governance space for example, not including any of those who either individually or organizationally refused agreement to the UNESCO “Connecting the Dots” Outcome Document which deliberately chose to reject a commitment to “democratic governance of the Internet” in favour of a non-defined “multistakeholder governance of the Internet”; nor including any representatives from the Just Net Coalition whose proposal for an Internet Social Forum <http://www.internetsocialforum.net/>  has just received wide acceptance and support in the context of the recently held World Social Forum <https://fsm2015.org/en> .

Further there would appear to have been no objection on the part of the CS Advisory Group to the failure of the conference to address the escalating issues of Social and Economic Justice through and by the Internet evidently accepting the bland generalities of a concern for “access” as an adequate substitute <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-divide/> . 

Also, there appears from the proposed conference outcome document to have been no discussion on the relationship between “security” and “social justice”. Why for example, is the discussion concerning “cyber security” only framed in military or police enforcement terms rather than as is broadly seen as appropriate in global civil society, recognizing that economic and social security for all provide the only realistic long term solution to the current cyber (and other) security threats. 

In other contexts ensuring that these issues were included in the discussion would be the natural role for CS participation.

Again we have an example of a purportedly “multistakeholder” process which by its very nature is biased and which lacks any of the formal processes of transparency and accountability out of which the legitimacy of any governance process must be built.

Mike

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: April 16, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Internet Governance; Nnenna Nwakanma; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
Subject: Re: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

Dear Colleagues,

In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.

Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all recognise their differences and their diversity but who, at the same time, all identify themselves as belonging to civil society. I see them recognising the potential weakening effect of those differences to the presentation of a common approach, and therefore the desirability of a “civil society” space for objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the diversity towards what common position may be possible.

I wasn’t there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.

Within the context of this imaginary myth:

Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Many of us were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel Pimienta suggested that we might work on distilling it into a set of principles that, as civil society, we could support. But we moved on to other things.

This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has stated what he disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the speech. Other people offered uncritical praise for what she had said. But we should not be “uncritical” with our praise. It would be good to see some constructive discussion of what she had to say.

Best wishes

Deirdre

 

On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> > wrote:

Hi Nnenna from the Internet,

....

-- 

“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150417/f616554a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org  Sat Apr 18 11:50:21 2015
From: dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org (David Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 11:50:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] FW: GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain> <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com>

I did not attend the GCCS, but my impression from other international
conferences is that a Chairman's Statement, no matter how much consultation
took place with stakeholders before or during the conference, is ultimately
a statement by the Chair (in this case the Govt of the Netherlands) and no
one else. It can attempt to convey consensus views, but no one else is
signing up to the statement or making any commitments around it.

So this statement has very different status than the NetMundial Outcome
document, which was developed through a multi-stakeholder process, or for
example the Tallinn Agenda on freedom online, which was endorsed by the
multilateral govts in the Freedom Online Coalition.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for raising this issue Deidre but I’d like to broaden the
> discussion a bit and ask what is the actual or presumed “status” of the
> meeting and of its outcomes.
>
> The fact that it was convened by the Dutch government, that it was the
> fourth in a series, that many governments attended and that the meeting
> issued a final statement which is widely noted (and seems to be issued with
> the expectation that it will have some status more significant than an
> ordinary trade or sectoral meeting) suggests that the expectation is that
> the meeting has some sort of quasi-official status.  That it is in fact,
> meant to be one those increasing number of unofficial/official meetings of
> the form of the NetMundial; i.e. not quite on the level of the clearly
> “official” WSIS+10 but having a normative and quasi-official status rather
> more than say TED talks or an ordinary Internet technical convening.
>
> And clearly the activities of the designated CS interlocutor(s) has been
> such as to give the appearance of something with some broader on-going
> significance as for example, by circulating the draft Outcome Document for
> comment and input.
>
> So I think that we can assume that the GCCS is meant to be one of those
> increasing stable of multistakeholder global Internet Governance unicorns
> whose intention is to replace more formal and “democratically constituted”
> global Internet Governance assemblies.
>
>  Why this matters of course, is because the clear intention is that this
> conference (and more importantly its’ “Chairman's Statement”) is meant to
> have a similar status to the NetMundial Outcome document i.e. something
> that is widely quoted, referred to and meant to have the form of some sort
> of soft international statement of guiding principles, deriving it’s
> legitimacy directly from the fact of its multistakeholder origination and
> authentication through the multistakeholder plenaries etc. of the meeting
> itself.
>
> The question of course is what legitimacy does this conference have on its
> own terms as a “multistakeholder” process and thus what significance or
> legitimacy can its outcome statement have beyond being a statement by
> certain individuals selected on the basis of non-transparent critieria,
> with no accountability to anyone other than the funders, and thus
> presumably selected and designed to reinforce and ratify already existing
> positions as determined by the conference organizers.
>
> The process of facilitating Civil Society participation completely lacked
> transparency and accountability to any agency outside of the organizational
> and decision making processes of the conference itself presumably under the
> direct supervision of the sponsoring governmental bodies.
>
> The facilitation of CS participation through control over travel funding
> and the holding of the editorial pen in CS contributions would appear to
> have been directed by the representative or representatives of
> organizations which get their primary funding from one or another of the
> main governmental sponsors of these meetings.
>
> The Advisory Board, presumably selected on the advice of this individual
> or individuals is notably not broadly representative of CS in the Internet
> Governance space for example, not including any of those who either
> individually or organizationally refused agreement to the UNESCO
> “Connecting the Dots” Outcome Document which deliberately chose to reject a
> commitment to “democratic governance of the Internet” in favour of a
> non-defined “multistakeholder governance of the Internet”; nor including
> any representatives from the Just Net Coalition whose proposal for an Internet
> Social Forum <http://www.internetsocialforum.net/> has just received wide
> acceptance and support in the context of the recently held World Social
> Forum <https://fsm2015.org/en>.
>
> Further there would appear to have been no objection on the part of the CS
> Advisory Group to the failure of the conference to address the escalating
> issues of Social and Economic Justice through and by the Internet evidently
> accepting the bland generalities of a concern for “access” as an adequate
> substitute
> <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-divide/>.
>
>
> Also, there appears from the proposed conference outcome document to have
> been no discussion on the relationship between “security” and “social
> justice”. Why for example, is the discussion concerning “cyber security”
> only framed in military or police enforcement terms rather than as is
> broadly seen as appropriate in global civil society, recognizing that
> economic and social security for all provide the only realistic long term
> solution to the current cyber (and other) security threats.
>
> In other contexts ensuring that these issues were included in the
> discussion would be the natural role for CS participation.
>
> Again we have an example of a purportedly “multistakeholder” process which
> by its very nature is biased and which lacks any of the formal processes of
> transparency and accountability out of which the legitimacy of any
> governance process must be built.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [
> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] *On Behalf Of *Deirdre Williams
> *Sent:* April 16, 2015 1:11 PM
> *To:* Internet Governance; Nnenna Nwakanma; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
> Global Journal
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] GCCS Speech
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.
>
> Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all recognise their
> differences and their diversity but who, at the same time, all identify
> themselves as belonging to civil society. I see them recognising the
> potential weakening effect of those differences to the presentation of a
> common approach, and therefore the desirability of a “civil society” space
> for objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the
> diversity towards what common position may be possible.
>
> I wasn’t there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.
>
> Within the context of this imaginary myth:
>
> Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Many of us
> were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel Pimienta suggested that we
> might work on distilling it into a set of principles that, as civil
> society, we could support. But we moved on to other things.
>
> This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has stated what
> he disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the speech. Other people
> offered uncritical praise for what she had said. But we should not be
> “uncritical” with our praise. It would be good to see some constructive
> discussion of what she had to say.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Deirdre
>
>
>
> On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <
> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Nnenna from the Internet,
>
> ....
>
> --
>
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
David Sullivan
Policy and Communications Director
Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org>
Office: +1 202 793 3053
Mobile: +1 646 595 5373
@David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150418/757bc686/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 18 12:16:08 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:16:08 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] FW: GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com> <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net> <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com> <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain> <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com> <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0a2701d079f2$fc9e6570$f5db3050$@gmail.com>

Good question David and if it is as you say then of course, the hosts can invite whomever they want and structure outcomes however they want and wish to pay for… But my strong impression from the various communications I’ve received and seen was that the status of the conference (and of the Outcome document) was meant to be rather something more than what you indicate.

 

But yes, it would be good to have that clarified.

 

M

 

From: David Sullivan [mailto:dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org] 
Sent: April 18, 2015 8:50 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

I did not attend the GCCS, but my impression from other international conferences is that a Chairman's Statement, no matter how much consultation took place with stakeholders before or during the conference, is ultimately a statement by the Chair (in this case the Govt of the Netherlands) and no one else. It can attempt to convey consensus views, but no one else is signing up to the statement or making any commitments around it. 

 

So this statement has very different status than the NetMundial Outcome document, which was developed through a multi-stakeholder process, or for example the Tallinn Agenda on freedom online, which was endorsed by the multilateral govts in the Freedom Online Coalition. 

 

Please correct me if I am wrong! 

 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks for raising this issue Deidre but I’d like to broaden the discussion a bit and ask what is the actual or presumed “status” of the meeting and of its outcomes. 

The fact that it was convened by the Dutch government, that it was the fourth in a series, that many governments attended and that the meeting issued a final statement which is widely noted (and seems to be issued with the expectation that it will have some status more significant than an ordinary trade or sectoral meeting) suggests that the expectation is that the meeting has some sort of quasi-official status.  That it is in fact, meant to be one those increasing number of unofficial/official meetings of the form of the NetMundial; i.e. not quite on the level of the clearly “official” WSIS+10 but having a normative and quasi-official status rather more than say TED talks or an ordinary Internet technical convening.

And clearly the activities of the designated CS interlocutor(s) has been such as to give the appearance of something with some broader on-going significance as for example, by circulating the draft Outcome Document for comment and input. 

So I think that we can assume that the GCCS is meant to be one of those increasing stable of multistakeholder global Internet Governance unicorns whose intention is to replace more formal and “democratically constituted” global Internet Governance assemblies.  

 Why this matters of course, is because the clear intention is that this conference (and more importantly its’ “Chairman's Statement”) is meant to have a similar status to the NetMundial Outcome document i.e. something that is widely quoted, referred to and meant to have the form of some sort of soft international statement of guiding principles, deriving it’s legitimacy directly from the fact of its multistakeholder origination and authentication through the multistakeholder plenaries etc. of the meeting itself.

The question of course is what legitimacy does this conference have on its own terms as a “multistakeholder” process and thus what significance or legitimacy can its outcome statement have beyond being a statement by certain individuals selected on the basis of non-transparent critieria, with no accountability to anyone other than the funders, and thus presumably selected and designed to reinforce and ratify already existing positions as determined by the conference organizers.

The process of facilitating Civil Society participation completely lacked transparency and accountability to any agency outside of the organizational and decision making processes of the conference itself presumably under the direct supervision of the sponsoring governmental bodies.

The facilitation of CS participation through control over travel funding and the holding of the editorial pen in CS contributions would appear to have been directed by the representative or representatives of organizations which get their primary funding from one or another of the main governmental sponsors of these meetings. 

The Advisory Board, presumably selected on the advice of this individual or individuals is notably not broadly representative of CS in the Internet Governance space for example, not including any of those who either individually or organizationally refused agreement to the UNESCO “Connecting the Dots” Outcome Document which deliberately chose to reject a commitment to “democratic governance of the Internet” in favour of a non-defined “multistakeholder governance of the Internet”; nor including any representatives from the Just Net Coalition whose proposal for an Internet Social Forum <http://www.internetsocialforum.net/>  has just received wide acceptance and support in the context of the recently held World Social Forum <https://fsm2015.org/en> .

Further there would appear to have been no objection on the part of the CS Advisory Group to the failure of the conference to address the escalating issues of Social and Economic Justice through and by the Internet evidently accepting the bland generalities of a concern for “access” as an adequate substitute <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-divide/> . 

Also, there appears from the proposed conference outcome document to have been no discussion on the relationship between “security” and “social justice”. Why for example, is the discussion concerning “cyber security” only framed in military or police enforcement terms rather than as is broadly seen as appropriate in global civil society, recognizing that economic and social security for all provide the only realistic long term solution to the current cyber (and other) security threats. 

In other contexts ensuring that these issues were included in the discussion would be the natural role for CS participation.

Again we have an example of a purportedly “multistakeholder” process which by its very nature is biased and which lacks any of the formal processes of transparency and accountability out of which the legitimacy of any governance process must be built.

Mike

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: April 16, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Internet Governance; Nnenna Nwakanma; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
Subject: Re: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

Dear Colleagues,

In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.

Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all recognise their differences and their diversity but who, at the same time, all identify themselves as belonging to civil society. I see them recognising the potential weakening effect of those differences to the presentation of a common approach, and therefore the desirability of a “civil society” space for objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the diversity towards what common position may be possible.

I wasn’t there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.

Within the context of this imaginary myth:

Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Many of us were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel Pimienta suggested that we might work on distilling it into a set of principles that, as civil society, we could support. But we moved on to other things.

This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has stated what he disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the speech. Other people offered uncritical praise for what she had said. But we should not be “uncritical” with our praise. It would be good to see some constructive discussion of what she had to say.

Best wishes

Deirdre

 

On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> > wrote:

Hi Nnenna from the Internet,

....

-- 

“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> .
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





 

-- 

David Sullivan
Policy and Communications Director
Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org> 
Office: +1 202 793 3053

Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 

@David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150418/bcf66468/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 18 12:46:30 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:46:30 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] FW: GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <0a2701d079f2$fc9e6570$f5db3050$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com> <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net> <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com> <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain> <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com> <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com> <0a2701d079f2$fc9e6570$f5db3050$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0a6401d079f7$39a63020$acf29060$@gmail.com>

This document reflects the summary of two days of intensive discussions during the Global Conference on CyberSpace. The document has been consultated with the stakeholders attending the Conference, and received broad general support. https://www.gccs2015.com/news/outcome-conference

 

This looks to me to be studied ambiguity but I think given the above, my observations still stand particularly given that they are using the “stakeholder” terminology which of course references the multiple mentions of MSism in the document itself (But of course your comments stand as well... 

 

M

 

 

From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: April 18, 2015 9:16 AM
To: 'David Sullivan'
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

Good question David and if it is as you say then of course, the hosts can invite whomever they want and structure outcomes however they want and wish to pay for… But my strong impression from the various communications I’ve received and seen was that the status of the conference (and of the Outcome document) was meant to be rather something more than what you indicate.

 

But yes, it would be good to have that clarified.

 

M

 

From: David Sullivan [mailto:dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org] 
Sent: April 18, 2015 8:50 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

I did not attend the GCCS, but my impression from other international conferences is that a Chairman's Statement, no matter how much consultation took place with stakeholders before or during the conference, is ultimately a statement by the Chair (in this case the Govt of the Netherlands) and no one else. It can attempt to convey consensus views, but no one else is signing up to the statement or making any commitments around it. 

 

So this statement has very different status than the NetMundial Outcome document, which was developed through a multi-stakeholder process, or for example the Tallinn Agenda on freedom online, which was endorsed by the multilateral govts in the Freedom Online Coalition. 

 

Please correct me if I am wrong! 

 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks for raising this issue Deidre but I’d like to broaden the discussion a bit and ask what is the actual or presumed “status” of the meeting and of its outcomes. 

The fact that it was convened by the Dutch government, that it was the fourth in a series, that many governments attended and that the meeting issued a final statement which is widely noted (and seems to be issued with the expectation that it will have some status more significant than an ordinary trade or sectoral meeting) suggests that the expectation is that the meeting has some sort of quasi-official status.  That it is in fact, meant to be one those increasing number of unofficial/official meetings of the form of the NetMundial; i.e. not quite on the level of the clearly “official” WSIS+10 but having a normative and quasi-official status rather more than say TED talks or an ordinary Internet technical convening.

And clearly the activities of the designated CS interlocutor(s) has been such as to give the appearance of something with some broader on-going significance as for example, by circulating the draft Outcome Document for comment and input. 

So I think that we can assume that the GCCS is meant to be one of those increasing stable of multistakeholder global Internet Governance unicorns whose intention is to replace more formal and “democratically constituted” global Internet Governance assemblies.  

 Why this matters of course, is because the clear intention is that this conference (and more importantly its’ “Chairman's Statement”) is meant to have a similar status to the NetMundial Outcome document i.e. something that is widely quoted, referred to and meant to have the form of some sort of soft international statement of guiding principles, deriving it’s legitimacy directly from the fact of its multistakeholder origination and authentication through the multistakeholder plenaries etc. of the meeting itself.

The question of course is what legitimacy does this conference have on its own terms as a “multistakeholder” process and thus what significance or legitimacy can its outcome statement have beyond being a statement by certain individuals selected on the basis of non-transparent critieria, with no accountability to anyone other than the funders, and thus presumably selected and designed to reinforce and ratify already existing positions as determined by the conference organizers.

The process of facilitating Civil Society participation completely lacked transparency and accountability to any agency outside of the organizational and decision making processes of the conference itself presumably under the direct supervision of the sponsoring governmental bodies.

The facilitation of CS participation through control over travel funding and the holding of the editorial pen in CS contributions would appear to have been directed by the representative or representatives of organizations which get their primary funding from one or another of the main governmental sponsors of these meetings. 

The Advisory Board, presumably selected on the advice of this individual or individuals is notably not broadly representative of CS in the Internet Governance space for example, not including any of those who either individually or organizationally refused agreement to the UNESCO “Connecting the Dots” Outcome Document which deliberately chose to reject a commitment to “democratic governance of the Internet” in favour of a non-defined “multistakeholder governance of the Internet”; nor including any representatives from the Just Net Coalition whose proposal for an Internet Social Forum <http://www.internetsocialforum.net/>  has just received wide acceptance and support in the context of the recently held World Social Forum <https://fsm2015.org/en> .

Further there would appear to have been no objection on the part of the CS Advisory Group to the failure of the conference to address the escalating issues of Social and Economic Justice through and by the Internet evidently accepting the bland generalities of a concern for “access” as an adequate substitute <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-divide/> . 

Also, there appears from the proposed conference outcome document to have been no discussion on the relationship between “security” and “social justice”. Why for example, is the discussion concerning “cyber security” only framed in military or police enforcement terms rather than as is broadly seen as appropriate in global civil society, recognizing that economic and social security for all provide the only realistic long term solution to the current cyber (and other) security threats. 

In other contexts ensuring that these issues were included in the discussion would be the natural role for CS participation.

Again we have an example of a purportedly “multistakeholder” process which by its very nature is biased and which lacks any of the formal processes of transparency and accountability out of which the legitimacy of any governance process must be built.

Mike

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: April 16, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Internet Governance; Nnenna Nwakanma; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
Subject: Re: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

Dear Colleagues,

In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.

Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all recognise their differences and their diversity but who, at the same time, all identify themselves as belonging to civil society. I see them recognising the potential weakening effect of those differences to the presentation of a common approach, and therefore the desirability of a “civil society” space for objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the diversity towards what common position may be possible.

I wasn’t there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.

Within the context of this imaginary myth:

Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Many of us were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel Pimienta suggested that we might work on distilling it into a set of principles that, as civil society, we could support. But we moved on to other things.

This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has stated what he disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the speech. Other people offered uncritical praise for what she had said. But we should not be “uncritical” with our praise. It would be good to see some constructive discussion of what she had to say.

Best wishes

Deirdre

 

On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> > wrote:

Hi Nnenna from the Internet,

....

-- 

“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> .
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





 

-- 

David Sullivan
Policy and Communications Director
Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org> 
Office: +1 202 793 3053

Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 

@David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150418/5dcf492f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sat Apr 18 12:48:12 2015
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:48:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] FW: GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com> <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net> <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com> <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain> <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com> <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55328ACC.1090905@acm.org>

Hi,

I think they intend it to be a bit more thant just a chair's statement. 
I expect that at least some hope that it rises to the level of the
NetMundial outcome.

In comparison with the NMI, for all its awkward first steps and its
suspect origins, it always intended to be a full instantiation of
multistakeholder participatory democratic processes.  A lot of us
thought these first steps faltered, but they keep on trying.  In the
GCCS and its GFCE (Global Forum on Cyber Experise - oh my), I think the
touch of Civil Society participation was a late afterthought and pales
by comparison even with NMI.

That being said, perhaps this late relaization will be followed by a
genuine atempt to reset the course.  I have not seen much evidence yet,
but as a beleiver in evolutionary processes, as always I I live in the
hope of organizations ability to evolve toward every greater examples of
multistakeholder models of participatory democracy.  I hear they spoke
of multistakeholderism, maybe they will decide to do something about
becoming more consistent with its participatory democratic methods.

And assuming we believe this effort is real and will endure, I assume
some of do since they spoke at the event, perhaps we need to push on 
the GCCS/GFCE to amend their ways..

avri

On 18-Apr-15 11:50, David Sullivan wrote:
> I did not attend the GCCS, but my impression from other international
> conferences is that a Chairman's Statement, no matter how much
> consultation took place with stakeholders before or during the
> conference, is ultimately a statement by the Chair (in this case the
> Govt of the Netherlands) and no one else. It can attempt to convey
> consensus views, but no one else is signing up to the statement or
> making any commitments around it. 
>
> So this statement has very different status than the NetMundial
> Outcome document, which was developed through a multi-stakeholder
> process, or for example the Tallinn Agenda on freedom online, which
> was endorsed by the multilateral govts in the Freedom Online Coalition. 
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong! 
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks for raising this issue Deidre but I’d like to broaden the
>     discussion a bit and ask what is the actual or presumed “status”
>     of the meeting and of its outcomes.
>
>     The fact that it was convened by the Dutch government, that it was
>     the fourth in a series, that many governments attended and that
>     the meeting issued a final statement which is widely noted (and
>     seems to be issued with the expectation that it will have some
>     status more significant than an ordinary trade or sectoral
>     meeting) suggests that the expectation is that the meeting has
>     some sort of quasi-official status.  That it is in fact, meant to
>     be one those increasing number of unofficial/official meetings of
>     the form of the NetMundial; i.e. not quite on the level of the
>     clearly “official” WSIS+10 but having a normative and
>     quasi-official status rather more than say TED talks or an
>     ordinary Internet technical convening.
>
>     And clearly the activities of the designated CS interlocutor(s)
>     has been such as to give the appearance of something with some
>     broader on-going significance as for example, by circulating the
>     draft Outcome Document for comment and input. 
>
>     So I think that we can assume that the GCCS is meant to be one of
>     those increasing stable of multistakeholder global Internet
>     Governance unicorns whose intention is to replace more formal and
>     “democratically constituted” global Internet Governance assemblies. 
>
>      Why this matters of course, is because the clear intention is
>     that this conference (and more importantly its’ “Chairman's
>     Statement”) is meant to have a similar status to the NetMundial
>     Outcome document i.e. something that is widely quoted, referred to
>     and meant to have the form of some sort of soft international
>     statement of guiding principles, deriving it’s legitimacy directly
>     from the fact of its multistakeholder origination and
>     authentication through the multistakeholder plenaries etc. of the
>     meeting itself.
>
>     The question of course is what legitimacy does this conference
>     have on its own terms as a “multistakeholder” process and thus
>     what significance or legitimacy can its outcome statement have
>     beyond being a statement by certain individuals selected on the
>     basis of non-transparent critieria, with no accountability to
>     anyone other than the funders, and thus presumably selected and
>     designed to reinforce and ratify already existing positions as
>     determined by the conference organizers.
>
>     The process of facilitating Civil Society participation completely
>     lacked transparency and accountability to any agency outside of
>     the organizational and decision making processes of the conference
>     itself presumably under the direct supervision of the sponsoring
>     governmental bodies.
>
>     The facilitation of CS participation through control over travel
>     funding and the holding of the editorial pen in CS contributions
>     would appear to have been directed by the representative or
>     representatives of organizations which get their primary funding
>     from one or another of the main governmental sponsors of these
>     meetings.
>
>     The Advisory Board, presumably selected on the advice of this
>     individual or individuals is notably not broadly representative of
>     CS in the Internet Governance space for example, not including any
>     of those who either individually or organizationally refused
>     agreement to the UNESCO “Connecting the Dots” Outcome Document
>     which deliberately chose to reject a commitment to “democratic
>     governance of the Internet” in favour of a non-defined
>     “multistakeholder governance of the Internet”; nor including any
>     representatives from the Just Net Coalition whose proposal for an
>     Internet Social Forum <http://www.internetsocialforum.net/> has
>     just received wide acceptance and support in the context of the
>     recently held World Social Forum <https://fsm2015.org/en>.
>
>     Further there would appear to have been no objection on the part
>     of the CS Advisory Group to the failure of the conference to
>     address the escalating issues of Social and Economic Justice
>     through and by the Internet evidently accepting the bland
>     generalities of a concern for “access” as an adequate substitute
>     <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-divide/>.
>
>
>     Also, there appears from the proposed conference outcome document
>     to have been no discussion on the relationship between “security”
>     and “social justice”. Why for example, is the discussion
>     concerning “cyber security” only framed in military or police
>     enforcement terms rather than as is broadly seen as appropriate in
>     global civil society, recognizing that economic and social
>     security for all provide the only realistic long term solution to
>     the current cyber (and other) security threats.
>
>     In other contexts ensuring that these issues were included in the
>     discussion would be the natural role for CS participation.
>
>     Again we have an example of a purportedly “multistakeholder”
>     process which by its very nature is biased and which lacks any of
>     the formal processes of transparency and accountability out of
>     which the legitimacy of any governance process must be built.
>
>     Mike
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of
>     *Deirdre Williams
>     *Sent:* April 16, 2015 1:11 PM
>     *To:* Internet Governance; Nnenna Nwakanma; Jean-Christophe
>     NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
>     *Subject:* Re: [governance] GCCS Speech
>
>      
>
>     Dear Colleagues,
>
>     In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.
>
>     Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all
>     recognise their differences and their diversity but who, at the
>     same time, all identify themselves as belonging to civil society.
>     I see them recognising the potential weakening effect of those
>     differences to the presentation of a common approach, and
>     therefore the desirability of a “civil society” space for
>     objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the
>     diversity towards what common position may be possible.
>
>     I wasn’t there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.
>
>     Within the context of this imaginary myth:
>
>     Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo.
>     Many of us were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel
>     Pimienta suggested that we might work on distilling it into a set
>     of principles that, as civil society, we could support. But we
>     moved on to other things.
>
>     This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has
>     stated what he disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the
>     speech. Other people offered uncritical praise for what she had
>     said. But we should not be “uncritical” with our praise. It would
>     be good to see some constructive discussion of what she had to say.
>
>     Best wishes
>
>     Deirdre
>
>      
>
>     On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>     Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>         Hi Nnenna from the Internet,
>
>     ....
>
>     -- 
>
>     “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>     William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> David Sullivan
> Policy and Communications Director
> Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org>
> Office: +1 202 793 3053
> Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 
> @David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150418/f812dffd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat Apr 18 15:41:57 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 21:41:57 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] FW: GCCS Speech
References:  <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain>
 <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com>
 <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642D9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

David you are right.

wolfgang




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von David Sullivan
Gesendet: Sa 18.04.2015 17:50
An: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] FW: GCCS Speech
 
I did not attend the GCCS, but my impression from other international
conferences is that a Chairman's Statement, no matter how much consultation
took place with stakeholders before or during the conference, is ultimately
a statement by the Chair (in this case the Govt of the Netherlands) and no
one else. It can attempt to convey consensus views, but no one else is
signing up to the statement or making any commitments around it.

So this statement has very different status than the NetMundial Outcome
document, which was developed through a multi-stakeholder process, or for
example the Tallinn Agenda on freedom online, which was endorsed by the
multilateral govts in the Freedom Online Coalition.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for raising this issue Deidre but I'd like to broaden the
> discussion a bit and ask what is the actual or presumed "status" of the
> meeting and of its outcomes.
>
> The fact that it was convened by the Dutch government, that it was the
> fourth in a series, that many governments attended and that the meeting
> issued a final statement which is widely noted (and seems to be issued with
> the expectation that it will have some status more significant than an
> ordinary trade or sectoral meeting) suggests that the expectation is that
> the meeting has some sort of quasi-official status.  That it is in fact,
> meant to be one those increasing number of unofficial/official meetings of
> the form of the NetMundial; i.e. not quite on the level of the clearly
> "official" WSIS+10 but having a normative and quasi-official status rather
> more than say TED talks or an ordinary Internet technical convening.
>
> And clearly the activities of the designated CS interlocutor(s) has been
> such as to give the appearance of something with some broader on-going
> significance as for example, by circulating the draft Outcome Document for
> comment and input.
>
> So I think that we can assume that the GCCS is meant to be one of those
> increasing stable of multistakeholder global Internet Governance unicorns
> whose intention is to replace more formal and "democratically constituted"
> global Internet Governance assemblies.
>
>  Why this matters of course, is because the clear intention is that this
> conference (and more importantly its' "Chairman's Statement") is meant to
> have a similar status to the NetMundial Outcome document i.e. something
> that is widely quoted, referred to and meant to have the form of some sort
> of soft international statement of guiding principles, deriving it's
> legitimacy directly from the fact of its multistakeholder origination and
> authentication through the multistakeholder plenaries etc. of the meeting
> itself.
>
> The question of course is what legitimacy does this conference have on its
> own terms as a "multistakeholder" process and thus what significance or
> legitimacy can its outcome statement have beyond being a statement by
> certain individuals selected on the basis of non-transparent critieria,
> with no accountability to anyone other than the funders, and thus
> presumably selected and designed to reinforce and ratify already existing
> positions as determined by the conference organizers.
>
> The process of facilitating Civil Society participation completely lacked
> transparency and accountability to any agency outside of the organizational
> and decision making processes of the conference itself presumably under the
> direct supervision of the sponsoring governmental bodies.
>
> The facilitation of CS participation through control over travel funding
> and the holding of the editorial pen in CS contributions would appear to
> have been directed by the representative or representatives of
> organizations which get their primary funding from one or another of the
> main governmental sponsors of these meetings.
>
> The Advisory Board, presumably selected on the advice of this individual
> or individuals is notably not broadly representative of CS in the Internet
> Governance space for example, not including any of those who either
> individually or organizationally refused agreement to the UNESCO
> "Connecting the Dots" Outcome Document which deliberately chose to reject a
> commitment to "democratic governance of the Internet" in favour of a
> non-defined "multistakeholder governance of the Internet"; nor including
> any representatives from the Just Net Coalition whose proposal for an Internet
> Social Forum <http://www.internetsocialforum.net/> has just received wide
> acceptance and support in the context of the recently held World Social
> Forum <https://fsm2015.org/en>.
>
> Further there would appear to have been no objection on the part of the CS
> Advisory Group to the failure of the conference to address the escalating
> issues of Social and Economic Justice through and by the Internet evidently
> accepting the bland generalities of a concern for "access" as an adequate
> substitute
> <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-divide/>.
>
>
> Also, there appears from the proposed conference outcome document to have
> been no discussion on the relationship between "security" and "social
> justice". Why for example, is the discussion concerning "cyber security"
> only framed in military or police enforcement terms rather than as is
> broadly seen as appropriate in global civil society, recognizing that
> economic and social security for all provide the only realistic long term
> solution to the current cyber (and other) security threats.
>
> In other contexts ensuring that these issues were included in the
> discussion would be the natural role for CS participation.
>
> Again we have an example of a purportedly "multistakeholder" process which
> by its very nature is biased and which lacks any of the formal processes of
> transparency and accountability out of which the legitimacy of any
> governance process must be built.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [
> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] *On Behalf Of *Deirdre Williams
> *Sent:* April 16, 2015 1:11 PM
> *To:* Internet Governance; Nnenna Nwakanma; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
> Global Journal
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] GCCS Speech
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.
>
> Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all recognise their
> differences and their diversity but who, at the same time, all identify
> themselves as belonging to civil society. I see them recognising the
> potential weakening effect of those differences to the presentation of a
> common approach, and therefore the desirability of a "civil society" space
> for objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the
> diversity towards what common position may be possible.
>
> I wasn't there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.
>
> Within the context of this imaginary myth:
>
> Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Many of us
> were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel Pimienta suggested that we
> might work on distilling it into a set of principles that, as civil
> society, we could support. But we moved on to other things.
>
> This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has stated what
> he disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the speech. Other people
> offered uncritical praise for what she had said. But we should not be
> "uncritical" with our praise. It would be good to see some constructive
> discussion of what she had to say.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Deirdre
>
>
>
> On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <
> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Nnenna from the Internet,
>
> ....
>
> --
>
> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
David Sullivan
Policy and Communications Director
Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org>
Office: +1 202 793 3053
Mobile: +1 646 595 5373
@David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan>


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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Sun Apr 19 12:50:41 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 18:50:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] World Charter of Free Media
Message-ID: <20150419185041.4dd6e454@quill>

Some very good stuff here; going forward, this should IMO probably be
treated as a fundamental document of Internet governance.

Greetings,
Norbert


World Charter of Free Media 
Tunis, March 2015

http://www.fmml.net/

We, communicators and activists committed to multiple emancipatory
communication practices across different regions of the world, freely
assembled in March 2015 in Tunis, on the occasion of the 4th World Forum
on Free Media, organized in the framework of the World Social Forum
2015.

Adopt this World Charter of Free Media, as the result of our collective
reflection initiated in 2013, and as an expression of our resistance,
and our commitment to just and emancipatory communication, and our
engagement with world developments and humanity.

We are communicators, activists, journalists, hackers, community media
associations and free media, social movements and popular organizations.

We are bloggers, audiovisual producers, free technology developers,
associations, networks, unions, journalism schools, research centers on
information and communication, and NGOs supporting access to information
and communication.

We are individuals and collectives, professionals, amateurs, and
enthusiasts participating in the democratization of communication from
the local to the global level, affirming that democratization and right
to communicate for all are essential to build a just and sustainable
world.

Since the beginning of the anti-globalization movement, we have worked
hand in hand to create a space of expression for social movements. The
World Social Forum (WSF), which includes thematic and regional forums
around the world since 2001, works as a space of convergence and
cooperation echoed by free media. Our network of activists appeared in
this dynamic and has evolved into an organized movement for freedom of
expression and the fight for another form of communication. We will
continue to cooperate with other movements, making communication a
political issue for everyone, to transform the global communication
system.

We practice new forms of human communication, intercultural, horizontal,
non-violent, open, decentralized, transparent, inclusive and shared,
through tools and forms of multiple expression (radio, television,
audiovisual media, Internet, etc. .), experimenting with new ways of
organizing and producing information. Our sources of funding, if they
exist, do not determine our ways of communication and our editorial
policies.

We are aware that the term "free media" refers to different
interpretations in our diverse linguistic and cultural realities. We
chose it primarily to gather around common practices based on autonomy
vis-a-vis commercial or state practices, the fight against all forms of
domination, and the will to guarantee spaces for open expression. We
wish to build economic models that are based on solidarity and
sustainability

The dialogue between our diversities has taught us to better understand
our strengths, our contradictions, our common ethics, our sensitivities,
our practices and our willingness to fight and struggle for
independence. Meetings held since 2013 have allowed us to develop a
common plan of action and strategic goals.

This Charter marks the culmination of this process as a new starting
point to continue building an emancipatory movement among activists
concerned with information, communication and technologies.

We need more than ever a counter-hegemonic communication, that is
pluralistic and engaged

We find that knowledge production and dissemination of information by
the hegemonic media are subject to political and economic powers.
Commercial media reproduce a system of values and understanding of the
world, widening the gap between the actual needs of companies and
already excluded marginalized social groups. During the last twenty
years, with the (rapidly increasing) concentration of the media and the
development of transnational telecommunications networks in all regions
of the world, the power of traditional communication activists has
grown. The mainstream media continue to construct hegemonic meanings,
subjectivities, and public opinions. They cultivate a logic of cultural
and linguistic commodification and are destabilizing factors in
different regions of the world.

More profoundly, we see that the communication patterns of hegemonic
media exacerbate the problems that the world is going through culturally
and politically. They homogenize and monopolize where we should value
diversity, encourage participation, and promote collaboration for
co-construction of knowledge and mutual understanding of the world. They
are organized around events of special interest and commercial values,
where we should understand the social processes in their context, and
promote general interests and social values.

We are building an inclusive communication, pluralistic and
transformative

Facing this hegemonic system, communication activists and civil society
have historically relied and continue to rely on free media in their
struggle for real democracy and social justice. These media are talking
to other voices and oppose the hegemony of discourses using
non-commercial and non-governmental platforms (such as community radio
stations, independent TV channels, newspapers, blogs and social
networks, music, street art, etc.).

With the advance of new information technologies and communication,
especially the Internet, we have seen in recent years the emergence of
new opportunities for sharing and disseminating knowledge in virtually
every country in the world. More and more groups defending free media
and their increasing interconnection reinforce our desire and ability to
work together across borders and different forms of media expression.

We note that civil society appropriates these new technologies to create
independent radio and television on the Internet, blogs, social
networks, platforms sharing audio and video files, digital newspapers
and magazines. These techno-activists develop free software and web
interfaces, and offer real alternatives to commercial software and
services.

We affirm common principles to guide our actions to promote free media
in our societies

Recognizing the international declarations, charters and reference texts
on communication, including Article 19 in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (1948) concerning the freedom of expression and the various
statements of social movements regarding the right to communication
adopted at the World Social Forums,

     1. We affirm that freedom of expression for everyone, the right to
     information and communication, and free access to knowledge are
     fundamental human rights. The right to communicate is the
     foundation of our humanity and our ability to create community.
     People have always looked for ways to communicate freely and
     independently, regardless of the historical oppression exercised
     by dominant groups through the media in our societies.

     2. We affirm that democratic information and communication is a
     fundamental condition for the exercising of democracy.
     Redistribution of speech, communication and action by free media
     should not be limited to technical or deterministic questions.
     Fundamental both for our movements and for the whole of society,
     free media are primarily a political question.

     3. We affirm that information and communication are essential
     tools in mobilizations and struggles seeking respect for human
     rights.

     4. We affirm that the information and communication platforms are
     common goods. Their use and management should address the concerns
     of general interest and pluralism, prioritizing popular
     participation. This implicates the elimination of the imposition
     of market ideologies and recognizes new areas of communication
     beyond the private and public sectors.

We fully embrace our role as free media claiming our features and our
responsibilities

The action of free media is based on the goal of independence vis-a-vis
the control exercised by the state and the economic, political,
ideological, and religious powers, and the conglomerate communication
groups. We stand against for-profit and market logics that characterizes
the hegemonic media.

We are in solidarity with social change, ecological and economic
justice, and democratic efforts in different parts of the world. Our
struggles are an essential part of the fight for human rights and the
struggle against colonialism, occupation, patriarchy, sexism, racism,
neoliberalism and all forms of oppression and fundamentalism. We are
mobilizing against violence on the Internet and in the media,
particularly against violence based on gender and vis-a-vis sexual
minorities.

Our preferred means of communication values a diversity of expression
and world understandings, tolerances, and the equitable distribution of
speech and power. We promote social participation, cooperation, and the
sharing of information among different media and between information
producers.

We fight against all hate speech, intolerance, and violence.

We highlight other ways of living, other representations of the world
and We encourage new forms of participation and political engagement.
Free media are designed to train people to use a critical reading of the
media from a popular education perspective.

We assume the duty to rebalance the information flows between all
countries of the world, and within countries themselves, creating
democratic public spaces that embody an ethic of respect for information
privacy.

We know how important it is to respect the cultures, memories, histories
and identities of peoples. Our work allows us to hear various interests
in society, the voices and actions of indigenous peoples, discriminated
minorities and social groups oppressed because of their religion,
identity, sexual orientation, class, abilities, ethnicity or language.

The content we promote values the diversity of imaginations, identities
and cultural expressions, as opposed to building aesthetic standards and
imposing gendered behavior on people. We will not give space to any form
of discrimination or gender oppression, or exclusion of any minority in
the world.

In a context of convergence, our free media work to achieve
technological sovereignty. They reject the commodification of digital
identities and promote the sharing of knowledge through the use of free
licenses and open software.

We demand the transformation of communication systems and are committed
the following strategic actions and priorities:

     1. We Affirm the right to communication as a fundamental right.  

     2. We Defend the Internet as a common good.  

     3. We promote democratic regulatory frameworks for the development
     of independent organizations and agencies, especially against
     hyper-media concentration.  

     4. We Call for and encourage the development of community media,
     reserving and assigning frequencies dedicated to the social
     sector.  

     5. We Strengthen the independence of public service broadcasting
     (or public media) vis-a-vis government and market interests.  

     6. We Encourage the use of languages and dialects in the various
     areas of media expression, with particular attention to minority
     languages.  

     7. We Assert the implementation of public policies to strengthen
     free media, promote quality and sustainability.  

     8. We Reject the monopolization of Internet infrastructure, data
     grabbing by corporations, and the monitoring of cyberspace.  

     9. We Establish democratic Internet governance policies including
     guaranteeing network neutrality, the right to network privacy and
     freedom of expression.  

     10. We Facilitate access to free and open technologies.  

     11. We Encourage Universal access to communication and broadband
     Internet.  

     12. We fight against the criminalization of activists and
     organizations who implement free media.  

     13. We Protect journalists and all communication activists
     subjected to violence, persecution or exploitation.  

     14. We Mobilize and create links between different media and social
     movements, particularly in the context of the World Social Forum
     process.

We call for the mobilization of actions related to the charter

     - Use this Charter to advocate for free media at the national,
       regional and international levels.

     - Implement the Charter as a teaching and learning tool, by
       organizing debates and discussion forums on free media and
       internet.

     - Build partnerships with other social sectors and international
       activists to promote and defend the principles set out above.

     - Map free media to facilitate various information sharing
       initiatives and experiences concerning the principles of free
       association and the respect for the right to anonymity.

     - Implement the Charter to generate instruments, tools or
       mechanisms concerning thematic or regional levels.

     - Promote the principles of the Charter among free media in every
       region of the world and on the occasion of various
       intergovernmental or international events among civil society.

We, free media, are aware of our strengths and the critical role we have
to contribute and pledge here and now, to fight for the principles and
commitments set out above, until they become reality.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 19 16:54:38 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:54:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <bd77b5c56c4e44c78f385a69b2872cc3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

I was offered a chance to comment on a draft of the Chair’s statement. I have no idea how many others were, but I am sure I was part of some much larger list.
I note with satisfaction that certain language about the “abuse” of free expression rights, which I objected to, was corrected in the final statement.

I note that other items I didn’t like were not changed, and that some aspects related to state surveillance may have been weakened (though it is hard to tell because I can’t find the original doc).

In that respect, the Chair’s statement is typical of a MS gathering; you get some of what you want and you don’t get other things. It reflects the lowest common denominator of what the collection of folks in the meeting could agree to, or what the Chair thought they could agree to.

The Netmundial statement adopted a far more bottom up and open methodology in its development, and thus has greater political significance and legitimacy in my opinion, so it would be a mistake to equate the two. But in terms of “official” status, neither of them are binding, and in some sense both are just statements competing for attention in the increasingly crowded bazaar of Internet governance related statements.

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



From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 8:38 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS

The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf

CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this


“The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”

I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will be more later.



Ian Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150419/ba71cb5b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 19 16:59:23 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:59:23 +0000
Subject: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7c578b9022446289d0e80b67bf034ec@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Very nicely put, Dierdre. Your origin myth is not so mythological, and conforms to what many of us involved in the early days of WSIS civil society had in mind. However, IGC was not conjoint with WSIS CS, it was formed to provide  of “a “civil society” space for objective discussion and negotiation of” internet governance_ specifically.
But we should not be “uncritical” with our praise. It would be good to see some constructive discussion of what she had to say.
MM: Amen to that. If I get a chance to read it I will comment.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150419/03c1631a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Sun Apr 19 17:34:34 2015
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:34:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <f7c578b9022446289d0e80b67bf034ec@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com> <f7c578b9022446289d0e80b67bf034ec@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CADFgh11rtSAOUyamvP+QzSzs4RZMxk77N5p9NcNXQ_-0TeF_5w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all, especially Dierdre

As always, when I get an invitation to speak at an instance that is
representative of any group, I will inform that group and seek "issues"
that I must not miss. I got input from many of us, across many lists and I
did my best to distill all of the points into 3-4 that can capture the
essence.

There is only so much that can be said in 5-7 minutes.  So I elected to
keep to the three major thoughts of access, freedom and mass surveillance.

I have learned that writing the key points helps someone keep focused, in
comparison with scribbling on paper and coming to "make a few comments".
I dont  think there was a huge departure from general CS issues on the
speech. Granted, not every thing could be covered and not all countries
that needed to be named and shamed can fit into a 5-minute speech.

I am convinced, however, that the "All of the people, all of the Internet,
all of the time" message was clear and was delivered.

Having said the above, I noted that "zero-rated" services may not have gone
well with some and someone had "respectfully disagreed".
I did retweet that and maybe that is where I see us taking the discussion
forward.  Mark Zuckerberg has published a blog post
<https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102033678947881> on this, and linked
it, interestingly with net neutrality.

My personal opinion, which is what I stated, is that zero-rated services
are not "sustainable access".

Will be good to hear what others think, especially people who live and work
in places where affordable access is still a huge challenge.

All for now

Nnenna

PS/ As for critical or uncritical praise.  It does not apply to me,
personally. As I never see speeches as mine. I only distill issues that are
common and I present them with a passion. So praise is not mine, but to all
who contributed. And I can tell you, there are many.

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Very nicely put, Dierdre. Your origin myth is not so mythological, and
> conforms to what many of us involved in the early days of WSIS civil
> society had in mind. However, IGC was not conjoint with WSIS CS, it was
> formed to provide  of “a “civil society” space for objective discussion
> and negotiation of” *internet governance*_ specifically.
>
> But we should not be “uncritical” with our praise. It would be good to
> see some constructive discussion of what she had to say.
>
> MM: Amen to that. If I get a chance to read it I will comment.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150419/89926023/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 19 19:30:14 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 16:30:14 -0700
Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Another Example of "Multistakeholder
 Governance" in Action: The Global CyberSpace 15 Unicorn
Message-ID: <024501d07af8$c9f5ed80$5de1c880$@gmail.com>

Folks might find this of interest. (in further response to Deidre's
challenge.

 

https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/another-example-of-multistakeholde
r-governance-in-action-the-global-cyberspace-15-unicorn/

 

http://tinyurl.com/q3rf35v

 

M

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150419/31146d6f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 19 19:55:02 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:55:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11rtSAOUyamvP+QzSzs4RZMxk77N5p9NcNXQ_-0TeF_5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f7c578b9022446289d0e80b67bf034ec@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CADFgh11rtSAOUyamvP+QzSzs4RZMxk77N5p9NcNXQ_-0TeF_5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7JKNz5SC07PfTnBYyzxbXZ_dMRgZUdWQF2Kw-9UhKhZA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Everyone,

Responding to Nnenna's PS in the realisation that I have probably been
guilty of the sin of jargon -
I have spent most of my "working life" (I have a problem with this
terminology but that's for later) teaching about literature and literary
criticism. Criticism (together with critical/uncritical) does not have any
negative connotation within that context. At its simplest it's the
"because" - I like this poem because, I don't like this poem because.There
may also be a "but". And the because and the but are the value added, the
chance to expand in some small way on the original work. If we add comments
to our approval/disapproval then we add value and move the collaboration a
step further.

>
> PS/ As for critical or uncritical praise.  It does not apply to me,
> personally. As I never see speeches as mine. I only distill issues that are
> common and I present them with a passion. So praise is not mine, but to all
> who contributed. And I can tell you, there are many.
>

For the rest of Nnenna's message I think we should say thank you for
providing a mouth, and such an eloquent and charismatic mouth, for so many
of us. We may approve/disapprove of the conference itself; that's a
separate issue.

For me, I wonder whether the word "access" might not benefit in future from
a second adjective - effective, usable - as well as the one it has at the
moment - affordable?

Looking forward to the becauses and buts

Deirdre



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150419/1cdb29bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 20 00:21:03 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:51:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] (Fwd) The internet wrecking ball (review of Astra
 Taylor book)
In-Reply-To: <CAN-nHJMh=w_zYFj3V0D-WO_CSqFO1LsDizvR8bpZ6XpwnNjjsw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN-nHJMh=w_zYFj3V0D-WO_CSqFO1LsDizvR8bpZ6XpwnNjjsw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55347EAF.4040803@itforchange.net>



From: *Patrick Bond* <pbond at mail.ngo.za <mailto:pbond at mail.ngo.za>>
Date: Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:06 AM
Subject: [Debate-List] (Fwd) The internet wrecking ball (review of Astra
Taylor book)
To: DEBATE <debate-list at fahamu.org <mailto:debate-list at fahamu.org>>


New Left Review 92, March-April 2015 <https://newleftreview.org/II/92>


    Emilie Bickerton


  CULTURE AFTER GOOGLE

Literature on the social impact of the internet has always struggled to
keep up with the breakneck pace set by its subject. First-generation
thinking about the net took form in the early 1990s, when usage was
rapidly expanding with the dissemination of early browsers; it grew out
of a pre-existing thread of technology advocacy that ran back to 60s
counter-cultural consumerism.[1]
<https://newleftreview.org/II/92/emilie-bickerton-culture-after-google#_edn1>/Wired/
magazine, founded in 1993, was its chief vehicle; key figures included
tech-enthusiasts Stewart Brand, Kevin Kelly and Howard Reingold,
with their ‘patron saint’ Marshall McLuhan. This euphoric
perspective dominated throughout the ‘new economy’ boom: the
internet was changing everything, and for the better, heralding a new
age of freedom, democracy, self-expression and economic growth. Grateful
Dead lyricist John Perry Barlow’s 1996 ‘Declaration of the
Independence of Cyberspace’, delivered from Davos, set the tone:
‘Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and
steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the
future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone.’ Pitted against this,
there had long existed a minor current of critical left writing, also
running back to at least the early 70s; this included ‘left
McLuhanite’ figures such as /The Nation/’s Neil Postman. More
overtly political, Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron’s classic 1995
essay, ‘The Californian Ideology’, skewered /Wired /in its early
days, while on the ‘Nettime’ listserv and in the pages of /Mute/
magazine, writers such as Geert Lovink attempted to forge a real
‘net criticism’. But these voices were mostly confined to the
dissident margins.

With the 2000–01 dot.com <http://dot.com> crash there came something
of a discursive shake-out. It was in the early post-crash years that
Nicholas Carr’s /Does //it//Matter?/ (2004) was published,
puncturing ‘new economy’ hype. But with the Greenspan bubble and
massive state-intelligence funding after 9.11, American tech was soon on
its feet again. Tim O’Reilly’s coining of the ‘Web 2.0’ buzzword
in 2004 captured the returning optimism. The blog craze, Wikipedia and
the first wave of social media all came into play during these years,
and it was now that the landscape of tech giants was consolidated:
Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft. The technology discourses of
this phase echoed the developing shape of the Web: with ‘open
source’ (another O’Reilly buzzword) and Wikipedia, it was argued
that undefined crowds could be superior producers of content and code
than named (or paid) individuals.

When a second, much deeper crisis erupted in 2008, American tech was one
of the few sectors to remain relatively unscathed, already moving into
new lines of production: smartphones, tablets, e-readers. The uptake of
these devices brought a qualitative expansion of internet use, blurring
the boundary between everyday life and a ‘cyberspace’ that had
hitherto been conceptualized as a separate sphere. Suddenly it was
evident that all the talk of the internet’s capacity to instigate
far-reaching social change was no mere talk. It was in these years that
a set of more pessimistic and critical voices started to come to the
fore, worrying about the dangers of the Web’s expanding use:
Nicholas Carr’s /The Shallows /(2010), Jaron Lanier’s /You Are Not A
Gadget /(2010), Sherry Turkle’s /Alone Together /(2011), Evgeny
Morozov’s /The Net Delusion /(2011). Carr’s book in particular
became the key expression of a mounting anxiety, even before the Snowden
revelations in June 2013 brought home some of the darker implications of
these developments. But now that the internet was so plainly entangled
in so much of everyday life, and so much of the structure of capitalist
society, it was becoming increasingly meaningless to isolate a singular
technological entity, ‘the internet’, as either simply good or bad.
The main object of net criticism was increasingly coextensive with
society itself, thus making a more social mode of critique plainly the
most pertinent one.

This is the context for Astra Taylor’s /The People’s Platform:
Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age/. Taylor presents
herself as neither a ‘cheerleader of progress at any cost’ nor a
‘prophet of doom’, condemning change and lamenting what has been
lost. She aims to provide a more nuanced mode of net criticism than
either of these standard rhetorical poles. She is by no means the first
to do so: Evgeny Morozov is another figure who would locate himself
here, taking up a third rhetorical position that distinguishes itself
against the other two and offering less techno-determinist, more
socio-political modes of explanation. But if the occupants of this third
position are right to place themselves here, it might be said that it is
easy now—in the third decade of the Web’s existence—to be right in
this way. What matters is the detail of the diagnosis and what we can do.

Taylor’s ambition, as her subtitle suggests, is to make the case for a
new cultural politics of the digital age. How Web 2.0 affects the
production and distribution of culture touches her in a direct sense.
She is a documentary filmmaker and editor of two books, one on
philosophy, the other on the Occupy movement in the us. She has no
parallel university job to shield her from the growing structural
inequalities she describes; nor for the most part do the musicians,
film-makers, photographers and investigative reporters whose stories she
recounts, working at the coal face of a culture industry that has been
transformed by the internet—but not in ways that /Wired/
predicted. Taylor’s personal background might make her seem an ideal
candidate for Web enthusiasm. She has written in /n+1/ magazine about
her enlightened home-schooling by counter-cultural parents. /The
People’s Platform/ opens with the story of how in 1991, the twilight
of the pre-Web era, the 12-year-old Taylor brought out her own
environmentalist magazine, copying it with the help of a friend’s
father who managed the local Kinko’s and distributing it to bookstores
and food co-ops around Athens, Georgia, in her parents’ car. She notes
how much easier it would have been to get her message out today,
when ‘any kid with a smartphone’ has the potential to reach millions
of readers with the push of a button. In 2011 Taylor helped produce five
crowd-funded issues of the Zuccotti Park broadsheet, /Occupy! Gazette/,
distributed free in print and online. This background is important; she
is coming from a position of high expectations and dashed hopes, not
sceptical resistance to technological change.

/The People’s Platform/ looks at the implications of the digital age
for cultural democracy in various sectors—music, film, news,
advertising—and how battles over copyright, piracy and privacy laws
have evolved. Taylor rightly situates the tech euphoria of the late 90s
in the context of Greenspan’s asset-price bubble, pointing out that
deregulated venture-capital funds swelled from $12bn in 1996 to $106bn
in 2000. Where tech-utopians hailed the political economy of the
internet as ‘a better form of socialism’ (/Wired/’s Kevin
Kelly) or ‘a vast experiment in anarchy’ (Google’s Eric Schmidt
and the State Department’s Jared Cohen), she shows how corporations
dominate the new landscape: in 2013 Disney and TimeWarner’s shares
were up by 32 per cent, cbs’s by 40 per cent and Comcast’s by 57 per
cent. The older tech and culture-industry corporations have
‘partnered’ with the new: at&t with Apple, Disney and Sony with
Google. The major record labels have stakes in Spotify, as has Fox in
Vice Media, while Condé Nast has bought up Reddit. In contrast to the
multiple distribution grids that once purveyed telephony, tv, radio and
film, nearly everything is now carried on cable or wireless
‘unichannels’, monopolized in the us by a handful of giants: at&t,
Verizon, TimeWarner, Comcast.

Their scale is matched by the newcomers. Google, which accounts for 25
per cent of North American consumer internet traffic, has swallowed up a
hundred firms since 2010. With over a billion users, Facebook has
enrolled more than a seventh of the world’s population. A third of
global internet users access the Amazon cloud on a daily basis. As
Taylor pointedly notes, the main source of Facebook’s and Google’s
profits is other firms’ advertising expenditure, an annual $700bn in
the us; but this in turn depends on the surplus extracted from workers
who produce ‘actual things’. The logic of advertising drives the
tech giants’ voracious appetite for our data. In 2012 Google announced
it would be collating information from its multiple services—Gmail,
maps, search, YouTube, etc.—to combine the ‘knowledge person’
(search queries, click-stream data), the ‘social person’ (our email
and social media networks) and the ‘embodied person’ (our physical
whereabouts, tracked by the phones in our pockets) into a single
‘3d profile’, to which advertisers can buy access in real time.
Facebook, which is now bundling users’ offline purchases with their
profiles, ‘to make it easier for marketers to reach their
customers’, as Mark Zuckerberg put it, had a market value of $104
billion on the day of its ipo. Without our ‘likes’ and comments, our
photos and tweets, our product ratings or restaurant reviews, these
companies would be worth nothing.

Online and offline are not separate worlds, Taylor insists; the internet
in her account has a distinctly ‘earthly’ reality. Broken down into
its three different layers—physical infrastructure (cables and
routers), software (code, applications) and content—it turns into
something more controllable, potentially vulnerable to harnessing. The
current battle over ‘net neutrality’ in the us is a marker of
this—a struggle over the dilution of regulation preventing cable
companies and service providers from slowing traffic down to stifle
competition, or charging extra fees to speed it up. A further question
is whether the principle of equal access could be extended from wired
broadband to wireless connections—not just mobile phones but cars,
watches, fridges, clothes, as the internet-of-things looms ever closer.

If the corporations have prospered in the digital age, what of the
relationship between creative labour and technological innovation? For
the tech-utopians, the Web would be a paradise of collaborative
creativity, with art and knowledge produced for sheer pleasure.
Richard Florida’s /Rise of the Creative Class/ (2002) hailed the
advent of the ‘information economy’, in which workers already
controlled the means of production, as these were inside their heads.
The tension between Protestant work ethic and Bohemian creativity would
be dissolved, as profit-seeking and pleasure-seeking, mainstream and
alternative morphed together. In reality, Taylor notes, the ideology of
creativity has become increasingly useful for a profit-gouging economy.
In a cruel twist, the ethos of the autonomous creator—the trope of the
impoverished but spiritually fulfilled artist—has been repurposed to
justify low pay and job insecurity. The ideal worker matches the
traditional profile of the creative virtuoso: inventive, adaptable,
putting in long hours and expecting little compensation in
return. ‘Money shouldn’t be an issue when you’re employed at
Apple’, shopworkers are informed. Graduate students are encouraged to
think of themselves as comparable to painters or actors, the better to
prepare themselves for impoverishment when tenure-track jobs fail to
materialize.

In Henry James’s ‘The Lesson of the Master’, a young writer
listens with growing alarm to the future mapped out for him by his
mentor, pursuing the path of total dedication to his art. No children,
no material comforts, no marriage—all this would tarnish ‘the
gold’ he has the capacity to create. He resists: ‘The artist—the
artist! Isn’t he a man all the same?’ Taylor’s investigation
of ‘free culture’ arrives at a similar, if gender-neutral, position.
She recognizes that ‘the fate of creative artists is to exist in two
incommensurable realms of value, and be torn between them’: on the one
hand, cultural production involves ‘the economic act of selling
goods or labour’; on the other, it entails ‘that elevated form of
value we associate with art and culture’. What she shows is that, for
cultural workers, conditions in the first realm have worsened quite
drastically, while the promise of the digital era—a level playing
field of universal, democratic access—turns out to offer scant
compensation; to add one’s shout to the digital cacophony doesn’t
create an intelligible debate. A songwriter tells Taylor that it takes
47,680 plays on Spotify to earn the royalties of the sale of one lp,
while iTunes can take a cut of 30 per cent or more. The ‘free
culture’ internet ideology disguises sharply unequal social relations:
the digital giants offer free apps, email and content as bait to hook an
audience to sell to advertisers; struggling independent artists are
supposed to provide their work on the same terms.

Taylor ruefully describes the experience of discovering that her
documentary film, /Examined Life/—interviews with philosophers, two
years in the making—had been posted online by strangers before it had
even opened in theatres. When she wrote to those responsible, explaining
that she would like a few months to recover the film’s costs before it
went free online, she was told (with expletives) that philosophy
belonged to everyone. ‘I had stumbled into the copyright wars.’ She
has no doubt that existing us copyright law is indefensible. In
1978, authors’ exclusive rights to their work were extended for
seventy years after their death, making a mockery of the original
principle of copyright as a reward or incentive for cultural production.
Instead, she argues, it gave a handful of conglomerates an incentive
‘not to create new things, but to buy up tremendous swathes of what
already exists’. /The People’s Platform/ argues strongly for a
reformed copyright system, in essence as a defence of labour, and calls
for a relationship of ‘mutual support’ between ‘those who make
creative work and those who receive it’. Taylor quotes Diderot’s
splendid fulmination:

    What property can a man own if a work of the mind—the unique fruit
    of his upbringing, his studies, his evenings, his age, his
    researches, his observations; if his finest hours, the most
    beautiful moments of his life; if his own thoughts, the feelings of
    his heart, the most precious part of himself, that which does not
    perish, that which makes him immortal—does not belong to him?

Contrary to tech-enthusiasts’ hopes for new forms of creative
collaboration, the majority of online cultural content is produced by
commercial companies using conventional processes. The internet has
steepened the ‘power curve’ of cultural commodities, Taylor notes,
with a handful of bestsellers ever more dominant over a growing
‘tail’ of the barely read, seen or heard. Netflix, which occupies 40
per cent of us bandwidth most evenings, reports that the top 1 per cent
of its inventory accounts for 30 per cent of film rentals; YouTube’s
ten most popular videos get 80 per cent of total plays. Taylor laments
the hollowing of the middle strata—less conventional works that
nevertheless resonate beyond a specialist niche.

The ‘missing middle’ is particularly relevant when she turns from
film and music to journalism. The news industry is another ravaged
environment in the digital age, with local and rural papers in the us
hit especially hard; the number of reporters covering state capitals
halved between 2003 and 2009. Even in the booming Bay Area, the /Oakland
Tribune/ shrank from two hundred reporters in the 1990s to less than a
dozen today. As Taylor points out, while you can now access the nyt,
British /Guardian/ and Canadian /Globe & Mail /with a single click, your
home-town papers have likely shut down. Her defence of the profession is
a classic one, based on the idea that journalists should act as
democracy’s watchdogs against ignorance and corruption, calling
politicians to account and bringing events from around the world out of
potential obscurity and onto front pages—paper or digital. In modern
newsrooms, however, in-depth international reporting is all but extinct:
by 2006, she writes, American media, both print and broadcast, supported
a mere 141 foreign correspondents overseas. Budgets are channelled into
developing digital editions and online magazines, like /The Huffington
Post/; news aggregators such as Gawker or ‘contagious media’ sites
like Buzzfeed proliferate. Yet the time-bomb hanging over foreign
correspondents was ticking long before the Web. Here again, new problems
are generally old problems with a different face: trends already evident
in the 90s underwent a dizzying acceleration as the digital era took
hold. The original newspaper model had used profits from print
advertising to fund its most expensive but often least read
international pages by bundling audiences together—crossword
aficionados and business-page readers with sports and celebrity-gossip
fans. Online, a newspaper’s sections are split and audiences
unbundled, allowing readers to go directly to the news they want without
having to glance at—or pay for—anything else.

aol’s guidelines for the new-model /Huffington Post/ suggest the
orientation of the future: editors are to keep their eyes glued to
social media and data streams to determine trending topics, pairing
these with search-engine optimized titles—often barely literate, but
no matter if they top results lists—and drawing on thousands of
bloggers as well as staff writers to push out a non-stop stream of
condensed, repurposed articles. Those determining the content of the
magazine are already locked in a ‘most popular’ feedback loop.
Meanwhile, the rapid-fire output of news agencies that run to a
‘hamster wheel’ tempo—wire-copy writers may be expected to churn
out ten stories a day—is becoming the only source from on-the-ground
reporters around the world. Agency journalists may be good reporters,
but their remit is to stay faithful to the neutrality commitment of
their employer and only say what someone else, usually in an official
position, has said already.

The ascendant model for news in the advertising-driven digital era is to
offer us what we’ve read about before, whether this is the price of
oil or the latest tennis results; major internet services shape content
according to algorithms based on past behaviour. We can personalize the
news, ‘curate’ and share content, but in the process, ‘what we
want winds up being suspiciously like what we’ve got already, more
of the same—the cultural equivalent of a warm bath.’ News
aggregation is about ‘capturing eyeballs’. As one young toiler
in ‘the salt mines of the aggregator’ explains: ‘I have made
roughly 1,107 times more money linking to thinly sourced stories about
Lindsay Lohan than I have reporting any original news.’ Independent
online news sites can be starved of funds. After the /Baltimore
Examiner/ shut down in 2009, journalists tried to set up a web-based
in-depth reporting site, /Investigative Voice/, along the lines of
/Voice of San Diego/, /MinnPost/ or /ProPublica/. It seemed, Taylor
writes, ‘a shining example of what many hope our new-media future
will be’, combining ‘the best of old-school shoe-leather
journalism’ with the internet as ‘a quick and affordable
distribution platform’. The reporters pioneered ‘episodic
investigative journalism’, posting and updating revelations of
government and police department malpractice, inviting reader input.
After barely a year, they were broke. Taylor’s contact took a job with
a local Fox affiliate, so he could see a doctor.

/The People’s Platform/ ends with a manifesto—in itself a more
ambitious move than those of most books on digital culture, even if
Taylor’s demands seem disappointingly limited after what has gone
before. She shrinks from the thought of nationalization—there is no
equivalent here to Evgeny Morozov’s ‘Socialize the data
centres!’—and disparages the free-software movement pioneered by
Richard Stallman and others as ‘freedom to tinker’. Instead she
calls for more regulation of the service providers and major platforms;
improved broadband provision; introducing a kind of Glass–Steagall of
new media, to force a separation of content creation from communication
and thus prevent a new round of vertical integration; levying a tax on
the advertising industry; pressuring Silicon Valley to pay tax at higher
rates; more public spending on the ‘cultural commons’, the arts and
public broadcasting (the education system gets no mention). In the
‘copyright wars’, she opts for reform rather than abolition
or ‘copyleft’. More broadly, Taylor argues that the ideology
of ‘free culture’ promoted by Web enthusiasts has centred on
distribution, obscuring and ultimately diminishing the people and social
supports that underlie cultural production. She seeks to redress the
balance by way of a more ‘ecological’, long-term mentality, drawing
on the politics of ethical consumption and ‘fair trade’ to call for
culture that is ‘sustainable’ and ‘fair’, as opposed to ‘free’.

In many ways, /The People’s Platform/ is strongest on the detail,
nailing highly specific targets (such as the myth that e-readers are a
boon to the environment; according to a /New York Times/ report, one
Kindle consumes the resources of four dozen books and has the carbon
footprint of a hundred). Taylor provides a valuable and demystifying
account of the current American cultural landscape. Strong on empirical
documentation, the book is weaker on conceptualization or structural
analysis. There is a sense that much of the material here remains on the
surface. Though her stated aim is to uncover ‘the socio-economic
forces that shape technology and the internet’, all we are given on
this front by way of explanatory causes is a passing mention of
shareholder value. Politically, Taylor situates herself as ‘a
progressive’—the book abounds in phrases beginning
‘progressives like myself’—which would seem to refer to that
section of American opinion located around the left of the Democrats,
/The Nation/ and /Democracy Now!./ She shares its strengths—a powerful
sense of moral indignation and hatred of injustice—and weaknesses, not
least a parochialism that can be blind to the world beyond America’s
borders and a failure to analyse the Democratic Party’s functional
role for Wall Street and Silicon Valley.

/The People’s Platform/ never confronts the fact that the Obama
Administration has not only presided over the continuing expansion of
the global surveillance state but has been exceptionally cosy with the
Valley elite. While Google, Facebook /et al/. have been enthusiastic
backers of the Democrats, a revolving door has seen staff and ideas
continue to pass between tech and intelligence ‘communities’. There
is surprisingly little in Taylor’s book on the digital heroes who have
incurred the Silicon President’s wrath: Manning, Snowden, Swartz. Yet
their actions have done more than most tomes of net criticism to reveal
the power relations of the digitalized world. Similarly, Taylor’s
manifesto might have been stronger had she looked across the Rio Grande.
That so much of the global infrastructure of the Web, both hardware and
software, is owned by American corporations has different implications
outside us borders. In pursuit of what Stallman has called
‘computational sovereignty’, the Lula government in Brazil began
funding free-software projects—‘free’ in the sense of /libre/,
rather than /gratuit/—over a decade ago. The Correa government in
Ecuador has taken the same path. A more comparative, internationalist
approach might also have shed greater light on what conditions allow
online investigative journalism to succeed; in France, the
subscription-based /Médiapart/ has flourished since its foundation by
former /Le Monde/ editor Edwy Plenel in 2007, breaking some of the
country’s biggest stories of political corruption.

While Taylor’s dismissal of free software as ‘freedom to tinker’
captures something real about its /prima facie/ narrowness as a
political programme, she misses the peculiar way in which this very
narrowness gives rise to significant implications when we broaden the
frame and examine a more social picture. While the individual user may
not be interested in tinkering with, for example, the Linux kernel, as
opposed to simply using it, the fact that it can be tinkered with opens
up a space of social agency that is not at all trivial. Since everyone
can access all the code all the time, it is impossible for any entity,
capital or state, to establish any definitive control over users on the
basis of the code itself. And since the outcomes of this process are
pooled, one does not have to be personally interested in ‘tinkering’
to benefit directly from this freedom. With non-free software one must
simply trust whoever, or whichever organization, created it. With free
software, this ‘whoever’ is socially open-ended, with responsibility
ultimately lying with the community of users itself.

While this issue of trust might have seemed narrowly geeky a few years
ago, as our lives become increasingly mediated by software
infrastructures, and especially post-Snowden, it is quite apparent that
such things can have major political ramifications. For example, it is
not unusual for non-free software to come with secret ‘backdoors’
that can enable third parties to collect information about users.
Intelligence agencies can turn on the microphone or camera on your phone
to find out what you’re doing or saying. With free software, the
problem is significantly reduced, since there is a world of users out
there attentive to such risks, ready and able to fix them when they are
found. These questions—and the ability to avoid surveillance or subtle
forms of technological interference by third parties—have an obvious
relevance for journalists, activists, committed intellectuals and
cultural workers, the subjects at the heart of /The People’s Platform/.

It is apparently still quite possible to live mostly beyond the purview
of Big Tech and the surveillance state, and a truly vast ‘commons’
exists that can support that independence. The use of non-tracking
search engines such as DuckDuckGo, instead of Google, can significantly
shorten the trail of one’s data footprints, as can a
security-conscious email provider like Kolab (especially when combined
with encryption), or a free activist one such as Riseup or
Inventati/Autistici, rather than an ad-based service such as Gmail,
which feeds on its ability to analyse your inbox. A federated social
network such as Diaspora can replace Facebook; instead of Google’s
Android, smartphones and tablets can run the free-software Replicant
operating system; Owncloud can provide the same functionality as
Dropbox. The list could be expanded: prism-break.org
<https://prism-break.org/en/>, run by one Peng Zhong and based, perhaps
only virtually, in northern France, offers a wealth of suggestions.

The major obstacles to a large-scale exodus in that direction are,
first, the self-reinforcing tendency towards consolidation, which makes
it very easy to join, for example, Facebook, and quite hard to leave;
and second, the straightforward temptation of corporate services that
are free and easily accessible, while the alternatives tend to cost time
or money, or both. Still, a cultural politics of the internet should be
grateful for the work of free-software programmers and would do well to
draw upon the possibilities it opens up. Since WikiLeaks and the Snowden
revelations, there have been signs of an emerging alliance between
hackers and journalists, as evidenced by /The Intercept/, the online
platform launched by Glenn Greewald, Jeremy Scahill and
documentary-maker Laura Poitras. Taylor is surely right that we need to
address the underlying socio-economic forces that shape digital
technologies. Yet against such powerful foes, an effective strategy will
aim to open multiple fronts; real advances, however small, should be
welcomed. The twist to James’s story was that the Master, having
dispatched his epigone to Switzerland in the name of art, promptly
married the young man’s beloved. The lesson, in other words, was
entirely worldly. Today’s young cultural workers may have learned that
already.


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

[1]
<https://newleftreview.org/II/92/emilie-bickerton-culture-after-google#_ednref1>
Astra Taylor, /The People’s Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in
the Digital Age/, Fourth Estate: London 2014, £12.99, paperback 277 pp,
978 0 0 0752 5591


-- 
To view previous posts, create a Google account with your current email
and log in using gmail to access the archives.
https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "debate-list at fahamu.org <mailto:debate-list at fahamu.org>" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to debate-list+unsubscribe at fahamu.org
<mailto:debate-list+unsubscribe at fahamu.org>.
To post to this group, send email to debate-list at fahamu.org
<mailto:debate-list at fahamu.org>.
Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/fahamu.org/group/debate-list/.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150420/e799ab7a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the World Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) and on related social and political movements and issues.  Join in !**
_______________________________________________
WSFDiscuss mailing list
POST to LIST : Send email to WorldSocialForum-Discuss at openspaceforum.net
SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe at openspaceforum.net
UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-unsubscribe at openspaceforum.net
LIST ARCHIVES: http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/
LIST INFORMATION: http://openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Apr 20 03:42:31 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 03:42:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] (Fwd) The internet wrecking ball (review of Astra
 Taylor book)
In-Reply-To: <55347EAF.4040803@itforchange.net>
References: <CAN-nHJMh=w_zYFj3V0D-WO_CSqFO1LsDizvR8bpZ6XpwnNjjsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <55347EAF.4040803@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3SBFLUjL4zFC9NmHmG0P=WPwqy=oSRKW7Z4SHNVHNZPw@mail.gmail.com>

For readability i've done a quick search and replace on some of the more
dodgy characters in this piece. I used a regular text editor so Italics are
also gone.
​​

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:21 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
>
>  From: Patrick Bond <pbond at mail.ngo.za>
> Date: Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:06 AM
> Subject: [Debate-List] (Fwd) The internet wrecking ball (review of Astra
> Taylor book)
> To: DEBATE <debate-list at fahamu.org>
>
>
>  New Left Review 92, March-April 2015 <https://newleftreview.org/II/92> Emilie
> Bickerton CULTURE AFTER GOOGLE
>
> Literature on the social impact of the internet has always struggled to
> keep up with the breakneck pace set by its subject. First-generation
> thinking about the net took form in the early 1990s, when usage was rapidly
> expanding with the dissemination of early browsers; it grew out of a
> pre-existing thread of technology advocacy that ran back to 60s
> counter-cultural consumerism. [1] Wired magazine, founded in 1993, was its
> chief vehicle; key figures included tech-enthusiasts Stewart Brand, Kevin
> Kelly and Howard Reingold, with their 'patron saint' Marshall McLuhan. This
> euphoric perspective dominated throughout the 'new economy' boom: the
> internet was changing everything, and for the better, heralding a new age
> of freedom, democracy, self-expression and economic growth. Grateful Dead
> lyricist John Perry Barlow's 1996 'Declaration of the Independence of
> Cyberspace', delivered from Davos, set the tone: 'Governments of the
> Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from
> Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the
> past to leave us alone.' Pitted against this, there had long existed a
> minor current of critical left writing, also running back to at least the
> early 70s; this included 'left McLuhanite' figures such as The Nation's
> Neil Postman. More overtly political, Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron's
> classic 1995 essay, 'The Californian Ideology', skewered Wired in its early
> days, while on the 'Nettime' listserv and in the pages of Mute magazine,
> writers such as Geert Lovink attempted to forge a real 'net criticism'. But
> these voices were mostly confined to the dissident margins.
>
> With the 2000-01 dot.com crash there came something of a discursive
> shake-out. It was in the early post-crash years that Nicholas Carr's Does
> it Matter? (2004) was published, puncturing 'new economy' hype. But with
> the Greenspan bubble and massive state-intelligence funding after 9.11,
> American tech was soon on its feet again. Tim O'Reilly's coining of the
> 'Web 2.0' buzzword in 2004 captured the returning optimism. The blog craze,
> Wikipedia and the first wave of social media all came into play during
> these years, and it was now that the landscape of tech giants was
> consolidated: Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft. The technology
> discourses of this phase echoed the developing shape of the Web: with
> ​ 'o
> pen source' (another O'Reilly buzzword) and Wikipedia, it was argued that
> undefined crowds could be superior producers of content and code than named
> (or paid) individuals.
>
> When a second, much deeper crisis erupted in 2008, American tech was one
> of the few sectors to remain relatively unscathed, already moving into new
> lines of production: smartphones, tablets, e-readers. The uptake of these
> devices brought a qualitative expansion of internet use, blurring the
> boundary between everyday life and a
> ​ '​
> cyberspace' that had hitherto been conceptualized as a separate sphere.
> Suddenly it was evident that all the talk of the internet's capacity to
> instigate far-reaching social change was no mere talk. It was in these
> years that a set of more pessimistic and critical voices started to come to
> the fore, worrying about the dangers of the Web's expanding use: Nicholas
> Carr's The Shallows (2010), Jaron Lanier's You Are Not A Gadget (2010),
> Sherry Turkle's Alone Together (2011), Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion
> (2011). Carr's book in particular became the key expression of a mounting
> anxiety, even before the Snowden revelations in June 2013 brought home some
> of the darker implications of these developments. But now that the internet
> was so plainly entangled in so much of everyday life, and so much of the
> structure of capitalist society, it was becoming increasingly meaningless
> to isolate a singular technological entity, 'the internet', as either
> simply good or bad. The main object of net criticism was increasingly
> coextensive with society itself, thus making a more social mode of critique
> plainly the most pertinent one.
>
> This is the context for Astra Taylor's The People's Platform: Taking Back
> Power and Culture in the Digital Age. Taylor presents herself as neither a
> 'cheerleader of progress at any cost' nor a 'prophet of doom', condemning
> change and lamenting what has been lost. She aims to provide a more nuanced
> mode of net criticism than either of these standard rhetorical poles. She
> is by no means the first to do so: Evgeny Morozov is another figure who
> would locate himself here, taking up a third rhetorical position that
> distinguishes itself against the other two and offering less
> techno-determinist, more socio-political modes of explanation. But if the
> occupants of this third position are right to place themselves here, it
> might be said that it is easy now - in the third decade of the Web's
> existence - to be right in this way. What matters is the detail of the
> diagnosis and what we can do.
>
> Taylor's ambition, as her subtitle suggests, is to make the case for a new
> cultural politics of the digital age. How Web 2.0 affects the production
> and distribution of culture touches her in a direct sense. She is a
> documentary filmmaker and editor of two books, one on philosophy, the other
> on the Occupy movement in the us. She has no parallel university job to
> shield her from the growing structural inequalities she describes; nor for
> the most part do the musicians, film-makers, photographers and
> investigative reporters whose stories she recounts, working at the coal
> face of a culture industry that has been transformed by the internet - but
> not in ways that Wired predicted. Taylor's personal background might make
> her seem an ideal candidate for Web enthusiasm. She has written in n+1
> magazine about her enlightened home-schooling by counter-cultural parents.
> The People's Platform opens with the story of how in 1991, the twilight of
> the pre-Web era, the 12-year-old Taylor brought out her own
> environmentalist magazine, copying it with the help of a friend's father
> who managed the local Kinko's and distributing it to bookstores and food
> co-ops around Athens, Georgia, in her parents' car. She notes how much
> easier it would have been to get her message out today, when 'any kid with
> a smartphone' has the potential to reach millions of readers with the push
> of a button. In 2011 Taylor helped produce five crowd-funded issues of the
> Zuccotti Park broadsheet, Occupy! Gazette, distributed free in print and
> online. This background is important; she is coming from a position of high
> expectations and dashed hopes, not sceptical resistance to technological
> change.
>
> The People's Platform looks at the implications of the digital age for
> cultural democracy in various sectors - music, film, news, advertising -
> and how battles over copyright, piracy and privacy laws have evolved.
> Taylor rightly situates the tech euphoria of the late 90s in the context of
> Greenspan's asset-price bubble, pointing out that deregulated
> venture-capital funds swelled from $12bn in 1996 to $106bn in 2000. Where
> tech-utopians hailed the political economy of the internet as 'a better
> form of socialism' (Wired's Kevin Kelly) or 'a vast experiment in anarchy'
> (Google's Eric Schmidt and the State Department's Jared Cohen), she shows
> how corporations dominate the new landscape: in 2013 Disney and
> TimeWarner's shares were up by 32 per cent, cbs's by 40 per cent and
> Comcast's by 57 per cent. The older tech and culture-industry corporations
> have 'partnered' with the new: at&t with Apple, Disney and Sony with
> Google. The major record labels have stakes in Spotify, as has Fox in Vice
> Media, while Condé Nast has bought up Reddit. In contrast to the multiple
> distribution grids that once purveyed telephony, tv, radio and film, nearly
> everything is now carried on cable or wireless 'unichannels', monopolized
> in the us by a handful of giants: at&t, Verizon, TimeWarner, Comcast.
>
> Their scale is matched by the newcomers. Google, which accounts for 25 per
> cent of North American consumer internet traffic, has swallowed up a
> hundred firms since 2010. With over a billion users, Facebook has enrolled
> more than a seventh of the world's population. A third of global internet
> users access the Amazon cloud on a daily basis. As Taylor pointedly notes,
> the main source of Facebook's and Google's profits is other firms'
> advertising expenditure, an annual $700bn in the us; but this in turn
> depends on the surplus extracted from workers who produce 'actual things'.
> The logic of advertising drives the tech giants' voracious appetite for our
> data. In 2012 Google announced it would be collating information from its
> multiple services - Gmail, maps, search, YouTube, etc. - to combine the
> 'knowledge person' (search queries, click-stream data), the 'social person'
> (our email and social media networks) and the 'embodied person' (our
> physical whereabouts, tracked by the phones in our pockets) into a single
> '3d profile', to which advertisers can buy access in real time. Facebook,
> which is now bundling users' offline purchases with their profiles, 'to
> make it easier for marketers to reach their customers', as Mark Zuckerberg
> put it, had a market value of $104 billion on the day of its ipo. Without
> our 'likes' and comments, our photos and tweets, our product ratings or
> restaurant reviews, these companies would be worth nothing.
>
> Online and offline are not separate worlds, Taylor insists; the internet
> in her account has a distinctly 'earthly' reality. Broken down into its
> three different layers - physical infrastructure (cables and routers),
> software (code, applications) and content - it turns into something more
> controllable, potentially vulnerable to harnessing. The current battle over
> 'net neutrality' in the us is a marker of this - a struggle over the
> dilution of regulation preventing cable companies and service providers
> from slowing traffic down to stifle competition, or charging extra fees to
> speed it up. A further question is whether the principle of equal access
> could be extended from wired broadband to wireless connections - not just
> mobile phones but cars, watches, fridges, clothes, as the
> internet-of-things looms ever closer.
>
> If the corporations have prospered in the digital age, what of the
> relationship between creative labour and technological innovation? For the
> tech-utopians, the Web would be a paradise of collaborative creativity,
> with art and knowledge produced for sheer pleasure. Richard Florida's Rise
> of the Creative Class (2002) hailed the advent of the 'information
> economy', in which workers already controlled the means of production, as
> these were inside their heads. The tension between Protestant work ethic
> and Bohemian creativity would be dissolved, as profit-seeking and
> pleasure-seeking, mainstream and alternative morphed together. In reality,
> Taylor notes, the ideology of creativity has become increasingly useful for
> a profit-gouging economy. In a cruel twist, the ethos of the autonomous
> creator - the trope of the impoverished but spiritually fulfilled artist -
> has been repurposed to justify low pay and job insecurity. The ideal worker
> matches the traditional profile of the creative virtuoso: inventive,
> adaptable, putting in long hours and expecting little compensation in
> return. 'Money shouldn't be an issue when you're employed at Apple',
> shopworkers are informed. Graduate students are encouraged to think of
> themselves as comparable to painters or actors, the better to prepare
> themselves for impoverishment when tenure-track jobs fail to materialize.
>
> In Henry James's 'The Lesson of the Master', a young writer listens with
> growing alarm to the future mapped out for him by his mentor, pursuing the
> path of total dedication to his art. No children, no material comforts, no
> marriage - all this would tarnish 'the gold' he has the capacity to create.
> He resists: 'The artist - the artist! Isn't he a man all the same?'
> Taylor's investigation of 'free culture' arrives at a similar, if
> gender-neutral, position. She recognizes that 'the fate of creative artists
> is to exist in two incommensurable realms of value, and be torn between
> them': on the one hand, cultural production involves 'the economic act of
> selling goods or labour'; on the other, it entails 'that elevated form of
> value we associate with art and culture'. What she shows is that, for
> cultural workers, conditions in the first realm have worsened quite
> drastically, while the promise of the digital era - a level playing field
> of universal, democratic access - turns out to offer scant compensation; to
> add one's shout to the digital cacophony doesn't create an intelligible
> debate. A songwriter tells Taylor that it takes 47,680 plays on Spotify to
> earn the royalties of the sale of one lp, while iTunes can take a cut of 30
> per cent or more. The 'free culture' internet ideology disguises sharply
> unequal social relations: the digital giants offer free apps, email and
> content as bait to hook an audience to sell to advertisers; struggling
> independent artists are supposed to provide their work on the same terms.
>
> Taylor ruefully describes the experience of discovering that her
> documentary film, Examined Life - interviews with philosophers, two years
> in the making - had been posted online by strangers before it had even
> opened in theatres. When she wrote to those responsible, explaining that
> she would like a few months to recover the film's costs before it went free
> online, she was told (with expletives) that philosophy belonged to
> everyone. 'I had stumbled into the copyright wars.' She has no doubt that
> existing us copyright law is indefensible. In 1978, authors' exclusive
> rights to their work were extended for seventy years after their death,
> making a mockery of the original principle of copyright as a reward or
> incentive for cultural production. Instead, she argues, it gave a handful
> of conglomerates an incentive 'not to create new things, but to buy up
> tremendous swathes of what already exists'. The People's Platform argues
> strongly for a reformed copyright system, in essence as a defence of
> labour, and calls for a relationship of 'mutual support' between 'those who
> make creative work and those who receive it'. Taylor quotes Diderot's
> splendid fulmination:
>
> What property can a man own if a work of the mind - the unique fruit of
> his upbringing, his studies, his evenings, his age, his researches, his
> observations; if his finest hours, the most beautiful moments of his life;
> if his own thoughts, the feelings of his heart, the most precious part of
> himself, that which does not perish, that which makes him immortal - does
> not belong to him?
>
> Contrary to tech-enthusiasts' hopes for new forms of creative
> collaboration, the majority of online cultural content is produced by
> commercial companies using conventional processes. The internet has
> steepened the 'power curve' of cultural commodities, Taylor notes, with a
> handful of bestsellers ever more dominant over a growing 'tail' of the
> barely read, seen or heard. Netflix, which occupies 40 per cent of us
> bandwidth most evenings, reports that the top 1 per cent of its inventory
> accounts for 30 per cent of film rentals; YouTube's ten most popular videos
> get 80 per cent of total plays. Taylor laments the hollowing of the middle
> strata - less conventional works that nevertheless resonate beyond a
> specialist niche.
>
> The 'missing middle' is particularly relevant when she turns from film and
> music to journalism. The news industry is another ravaged environment in
> the digital age, with local and rural papers in the us hit especially hard;
> the number of reporters covering state capitals halved between 2003 and
> 2009. Even in the booming Bay Area, the Oakland Tribune shrank from two
> hundred reporters in the 1990s to less than a dozen today. As Taylor points
> out, while you can now access the nyt, British Guardian and Canadian Globe
> & Mail with a single click, your home-town papers have likely shut down.
> Her defence of the profession is a classic one, based on the idea that
> journalists should act as democracy's watchdogs against ignorance and
> corruption, calling politicians to account and bringing events from around
> the world out of potential obscurity and onto front pages - paper or
> digital. In modern newsrooms, however, in-depth international reporting is
> all but extinct: by 2006, she writes, American media, both print and
> broadcast, supported a mere 141 foreign correspondents overseas. Budgets
> are channelled into developing digital editions and online magazines, like
> The Huffington Post; news aggregators such as Gawker or 'contagious media'
> sites like Buzzfeed proliferate. Yet the time-bomb hanging over foreign
> correspondents was ticking long before the Web. Here again, new problems
> are generally old problems with a different face: trends already evident in
> the 90s underwent a dizzying acceleration as the digital era took hold. The
> original newspaper model had used profits from print advertising to fund
> its most expensive but often least read international pages by bundling
> audiences together - crossword aficionados and business-page readers with
> sports and celebrity-gossip fans. Online, a newspaper's sections are split
> and audiences unbundled, allowing readers to go directly to the news they
> want without having to glance at - or pay for - anything else.
>
> aol's guidelines for the new-model Huffington Post suggest the orientation
> of the future: editors are to keep their eyes glued to social media and
> data streams to determine trending topics, pairing these with search-engine
> optimized titles - often barely literate, but no matter if they top results
> lists - and drawing on thousands of bloggers as well as staff writers to
> push out a non-stop stream of condensed, repurposed articles. Those
> determining the content of the magazine are already locked in a 'most
> popular' feedback loop. Meanwhile, the rapid-fire output of news agencies
> that run to a 'hamster wheel' tempo - wire-copy writers may be expected to
> churn out ten stories a day - is becoming the only source from
> on-the-ground reporters around the world. Agency journalists may be good
> reporters, but their remit is to stay faithful to the neutrality commitment
> of their employer and only say what someone else, usually in an official
> position, has said already.
>
> The ascendant model for news in the advertising-driven digital era is to
> offer us what we've read about before, whether this is the price of oil or
> the latest tennis results; major internet services shape content according
> to algorithms based on past behaviour. We can personalize the news,
> 'curate' and share content, but in the process, 'what we want winds up
> being suspiciously like what we've got already, more of the same - the
> cultural equivalent of a warm bath.' News aggregation is about 'capturing
> eyeballs'. As one young toiler in 'the salt mines of the aggregator'
> explains: 'I have made roughly 1,107 times more money linking to thinly
> sourced stories about Lindsay Lohan than I have reporting any original
> news.' Independent online news sites can be starved of funds. After the
> Baltimore Examiner shut down in 2009, journalists tried to set up a
> web-based in-depth reporting site, Investigative Voice, along the lines of
> Voice of San Diego, MinnPost or ProPublica. It seemed, Taylor writes, 'a
> shining example of what many hope our new-media future will be', combining
> ​ '​
> the best of old-school shoe-leather journalism' with the internet as 'a
> quick and affordable distribution platform'. The reporters pioneered
> 'episodic investigative journalism', posting and updating revelations of
> government and police department malpractice, inviting reader input. After
> barely a year, they were broke. Taylor's contact took a job with a local
> Fox affiliate, so he could see a doctor.
>
> The People's Platform ends with a manifesto - in itself a more ambitious
> move than those of most books on digital culture, even if Taylor's demands
> seem disappointingly limited after what has gone before. She shrinks from
> the thought of nationalization - there is no equivalent here to Evgeny
> Morozov's 'Socialize the data centres!' - and disparages the free-software
> movement pioneered by Richard Stallman and others as 'freedom to tinker'.
> Instead she calls for more regulation of the service providers and major
> platforms; improved broadband provision; introducing a kind of
> Glass'“Steagall of new media, to force a separation of content creation
> from communication and thus prevent a new round of vertical integration;
> levying a tax on the advertising industry; pressuring Silicon Valley to pay
> tax at higher rates; more public spending on the 'cultural commons', the
> arts and public broadcasting (the education system gets no mention). In the
> '˜copyright wars', she opts for reform rather than abolition or
> '˜copyleft'. More broadly, Taylor argues that the ideology of '˜free
> culture' promoted by Web enthusiasts has centred on distribution, obscuring
> and ultimately diminishing the people and social supports that underlie
> cultural production. She seeks to redress the balance by way of a more
> ˜ecological', long-term mentality, drawing on the politics of ethical
> consumption and '˜fair trade' to call for culture that is 'sustainable' and
> '˜fair', as opposed to '˜free'.
>
> In many ways, The People's Platform is strongest on the detail, nailing
> highly specific targets (such as the myth that e-readers are a boon to the
> environment; according to a New York Times report, one Kindle consumes the
> resources of four dozen books and has the carbon footprint of a hundred).
> Taylor provides a valuable and demystifying account of the current American
> cultural landscape. Strong on empirical documentation, the book is weaker
> on conceptualization or structural analysis. There is a sense that much of
> the material here remains on the surface. Though her stated aim is to
> uncover 'the socio-economic forces that shape technology and the internet',
> all we are given on this front by way of explanatory causes is a passing
> mention of shareholder value. Politically, Taylor situates herself as '˜a
> progressive' - the book abounds in phrases beginning '˜progressives like
> myself' - which would seem to refer to that section of American opinion
> located around the left of the Democrats, The Nation and Democracy Now!.
> She shares its strengths - a powerful sense of moral indignation and hatred
> of injustice - and weaknesses, not least a parochialism that can be blind
> to the world beyond America's borders and a failure to analyse the
> Democratic Party's functional role for Wall Street and Silicon Valley.
>
> The People's Platform never confronts the fact that the Obama
> Administration has not only presided over the continuing expansion of the
> global surveillance state but has been exceptionally cosy with the Valley
> elite. While Google, Facebook et al. have been enthusiastic backers of the
> Democrats, a revolving door has seen staff and ideas continue to pass
> between tech and intelligence 'communities'. There is surprisingly little
> in Taylor's book on the digital heroes who have incurred the Silicon
> President's wrath: Manning, Snowden, Swartz. Yet their actions have done
> more than most tomes of net criticism to reveal the power relations of the
> digitalized world. Similarly, Taylor's manifesto might have been stronger
> had she looked across the Rio Grande. That so much of the global
> infrastructure of the Web, both hardware and software, is owned by American
> corporations has different implications outside us borders. In pursuit of
> what Stallman has called '˜computational sovereignty', the Lula government
> in Brazil began funding free-software projects - 'free' in the sense of
> libre, rather than gratuit - over a decade ago. The Correa government in
> Ecuador has taken the same path. A more comparative, internationalist
> approach might also have shed greater light on what conditions allow online
> investigative journalism to succeed; in France, the subscription-based
> Médiapart has flourished since its foundation by former Le Monde editor
> Edwy Plenel in 2007, breaking some of the country's biggest stories of
> political corruption.
>
> While Taylor's dismissal of free software as 'freedom to tinker' captures
> something real about its prima facie narrowness as a political programme,
> she misses the peculiar way in which this very narrowness gives rise to
> significant implications when we broaden the frame and examine a more
> social picture. While the individual user may not be interested in
> tinkering with, for example, the Linux kernel, as opposed to simply using
> it, the fact that it can be tinkered with opens up a space of social agency
> that is not at all trivial. Since everyone can access all the code all the
> time, it is impossible for any entity, capital or state, to establish any
> definitive control over users on the basis of the code itself. And since
> the outcomes of this process are pooled, one does not have to be personally
> interested in 'tinkering' to benefit directly from this freedom. With
> non-free software one must simply trust whoever, or whichever organization,
> created it. With free software, this 'whoever' is socially open-ended, with
> responsibility ultimately lying with the community of users itself.
>
> While this issue of trust might have seemed narrowly geeky a few years
> ago, as our lives become increasingly mediated by software infrastructures,
> and especially post-Snowden, it is quite apparent that such things can have
> major political ramifications. For example, it is not unusual for non-free
> software to come with secret 'backdoors' that can enable third parties to
> collect information about users. Intelligence agencies can turn on the
> microphone or camera on your phone to find out what you're doing or saying.
> With free software, the problem is significantly reduced, since there is a
> world of users out there attentive to such risks, ready and able to fix
> them when they are found. These questions - and the ability to avoid
> surveillance or subtle forms of technological interference by third parties
> - have an obvious relevance for journalists, activists, committed
> intellectuals and cultural workers, the subjects at the heart of The
> People's Platform.
>
> It is apparently still quite possible to live mostly beyond the purview of
> Big Tech and the surveillance state, and a truly vast 'commons' exists that
> can support that independence. The use of non-tracking search engines such
> as DuckDuckGo, instead of Google, can significantly shorten the trail of
> one's data footprints, as can a security-conscious email provider like
> Kolab (especially when combined with encryption), or a free activist one
> such as Riseup or Inventati/Autistici, rather than an ad-based service such
> as Gmail, which feeds on its ability to analyse your inbox. A federated
> social network such as Diaspora can replace Facebook; instead of Google's
> Android, smartphones and tablets can run the free-software Replicant
> operating system; Owncloud can provide the same functionality as Dropbox.
> The list could be expanded: prism-break.org, run by one Peng Zhong and
> based, perhaps only virtually, in northern France, offers a wealth of
> suggestions.
>
> The major obstacles to a large-scale exodus in that direction are, first,
> the self-reinforcing tendency towards consolidation, which makes it very
> easy to join, for example, Facebook, and quite hard to leave; and second,
> the straightforward temptation of corporate services that are free and
> easily accessible, while the alternatives tend to cost time or money, or
> both. Still, a cultural politics of the internet should be grateful for the
> work of free-software programmers and would do well to draw upon the
> possibilities it opens up. Since WikiLeaks and the Snowden revelations,
> there have been signs of an emerging alliance between hackers and
> journalists, as evidenced by The Intercept, the online platform launched by
> Glenn Greewald, Jeremy Scahill and documentary-maker Laura Poitras. Taylor
> is surely right that we need to address the underlying socio-economic
> forces that shape digital technologies. Yet against such powerful foes, an
> effective strategy will aim to open multiple fronts; real advances, however
> small, should be welcomed. The twist to James's story was that the Master,
> having dispatched his epigone to Switzerland in the name of art, promptly
> married the young man's beloved. The lesson, in other words, was entirely
> worldly. Today's young cultural workers may have learned that already.
>
> [1] Astra Taylor, The People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in
> the Digital Age, Fourth Estate: London 2014, £12.99, paperback 277 pp, 978
> 0 0 0752 5591
>
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150420/54305722/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Apr 20 08:50:39 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:50:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] Guardian
References:  <CAN-nHJMh=w_zYFj3V0D-WO_CSqFO1LsDizvR8bpZ6XpwnNjjsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <55347EAF.4040803@itforchange.net>
 <CAM9VJk3SBFLUjL4zFC9NmHmG0P=WPwqy=oSRKW7Z4SHNVHNZPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642DAA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/17/can-the-internet-be-saved-without-harming-democracy

FYI

w

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

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

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

From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Mon Apr 20 12:54:21 2015
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:54:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] Guardian
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642DAA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CAN-nHJMh=w_zYFj3V0D-WO_CSqFO1LsDizvR8bpZ6XpwnNjjsw@mail.gmail.com> <55347EAF.4040803@itforchange.net> <CAM9VJk3SBFLUjL4zFC9NmHmG0P=WPwqy=oSRKW7Z4SHNVHNZPw@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642DAA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <58CE3E86-D2EE-44D1-BF64-AD198EBB4395@gmail.com>

Interesting quote:

The concerns expressed here with multistakeholderism are sounded as a general warning about the neoliberal directions in which it takes us, rather than a dismissal of the promising and important content of the commission’s report.

The report is at least sensitive to the need to keep all players – whether corporate or state – accountable, within the law, and responsive to a greatly enhanced set of tech norms and ethics, a point championed in particular by the group’s tech-savvy Dutch Liberal MEP Marietje Schaake.

However, it is a worry that the report does not even consider the mechanisms by which an international and social consensus might be achieved on the issues being addressed. The social compact may be advanced pragmatically, because better alternatives are not considered feasible or reachable. But the concern is that, by appealing to what is, in effect, self-regulation, the compact will become a diluted pacifier, and a ceiling, rather than a floor.

Le 20 avr. 2015 à 14:50, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :

> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/17/can-the-internet-be-saved-without-harming-democracy
> 
> FYI
> 
> w
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150420/1380e6d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 20 14:18:57 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:18:57 -0700
Subject: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <bd77b5c56c4e44c78f385a69b2872cc3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba> <bd77b5c56c4e44c78f385a69b2872cc3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <060a01d07b96$7977ce70$6c676b50$@gmail.com>

But surely that is the point of my blogpost <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/another-example-of-multistakeholder-governance-in-action-the-global-cyberspace-15-unicorn/>  Milton… Of course, the GCCS Chairman’s report isn’t “binding”, but nor is the NM Outcome document with which the Chairman’s report so closely associates itself; and read this below as but one example (from ISOC) among an avalanche of others of the ascribed status of this “Multistakeholder” document of unknown legitimacy, questionable accountability and no evident representivity.

 

Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms

http://internetgovernancepanel.org

| MAY 2014

 

I.              Foundational principles enabling more collaborative internet governance

 

The Panel recognizes, fully supports, and adopts the IG Principles produced 

in the NETmundial Statement, which “identified a set of common principles 

and important values that contribute to an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective, 

legitimate, and evolving IG framework and recognized that the Internet is a global 

resource which should be managed in the public interest” (see Annex 1). These 

NETmundial Principles are fundamental for the operationalization of a 21st century, 

collaborative framework of governance for a unified Internet that is unfragmented, 

interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trust 

building. 

 

Either “unicorns” such as the GCCS (or the NetMundial) have status and thus should be held publicly accountable to some standards of determining legitimacy, accountability, transparency, representivity; or they have no status and thus their outcomes should be treated as merely PR statements (Press releases/public relations outputs) with no significance or legitimacy beyond the opinions of the selected few who have been involved in issuing them.

 

Clearly they can’t be both and the studied ambiguity of switching from one status to the other depending on the intended audience is both fraudulent and dangerous.

 

M 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: April 19, 2015 1:55 PM
To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Ian Peter'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'forum at justnetcoalition.org'
Subject: RE: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS

 

I was offered a chance to comment on a draft of the Chair’s statement. I have no idea how many others were, but I am sure I was part of some much larger list. 

I note with satisfaction that certain language about the “abuse” of free expression rights, which I objected to, was corrected in the final statement. 

 

I note that other items I didn’t like were not changed, and that some aspects related to state surveillance may have been weakened (though it is hard to tell because I can’t find the original doc). 

 

In that respect, the Chair’s statement is typical of a MS gathering; you get some of what you want and you don’t get other things. It reflects the lowest common denominator of what the collection of folks in the meeting could agree to, or what the Chair thought they could agree to.

 

The Netmundial statement adopted a far more bottom up and open methodology in its development, and thus has greater political significance and legitimacy in my opinion, so it would be a mistake to equate the two. But in terms of “official” status, neither of them are binding, and in some sense both are just statements competing for attention in the increasingly crowded bazaar of Internet governance related statements. 

 

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> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html 

 

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 8:38 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ; forum at justnetcoalition.org <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org> 
Subject: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS

 

The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf

 

CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this

 

 

“The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”

 

I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will be more later.

 

 

 

Ian Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150420/c7400bd7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Mon Apr 20 14:45:44 2015
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:45:44 +0900
Subject: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7JKNz5SC07PfTnBYyzxbXZ_dMRgZUdWQF2Kw-9UhKhZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f7c578b9022446289d0e80b67bf034ec@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CADFgh11rtSAOUyamvP+QzSzs4RZMxk77N5p9NcNXQ_-0TeF_5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7JKNz5SC07PfTnBYyzxbXZ_dMRgZUdWQF2Kw-9UhKhZA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKgpY=f+rEWNURTqawv0Ur8d2uvV47n7szeCWi1Kqg5k0Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I think it's very healthy and constructive to review the speech delivered.
Thank you Deirdre to bring this onto the table, and thank you Nennena to
respond
so constructively.

I would like to put just one point.
It was done with other stakeholder speakers as the opening speech.
And compared with all others, our civil society speaker gave much more
powerful, moving and also logical messages in the very limited time and
special context.

Dutch Prime minister, expensive professional dancing performance, "Father
of the Internet" were all the background of our Civil Society delivery of
the opening statement.

izumi




2015-04-20 8:55 GMT+09:00 Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>:

> Dear Everyone,
>
> Responding to Nnenna's PS in the realisation that I have probably been
> guilty of the sin of jargon -
> I have spent most of my "working life" (I have a problem with this
> terminology but that's for later) teaching about literature and literary
> criticism. Criticism (together with critical/uncritical) does not have any
> negative connotation within that context. At its simplest it's the
> "because" - I like this poem because, I don't like this poem because.There
> may also be a "but". And the because and the but are the value added, the
> chance to expand in some small way on the original work. If we add comments
> to our approval/disapproval then we add value and move the collaboration a
> step further.
>
>>
>> PS/ As for critical or uncritical praise.  It does not apply to me,
>> personally. As I never see speeches as mine. I only distill issues that are
>> common and I present them with a passion. So praise is not mine, but to all
>> who contributed. And I can tell you, there are many.
>>
>
> For the rest of Nnenna's message I think we should say thank you for
> providing a mouth, and such an eloquent and charismatic mouth, for so many
> of us. We may approve/disapprove of the conference itself; that's a
> separate issue.
>
> For me, I wonder whether the word "access" might not benefit in future
> from a second adjective - effective, usable - as well as the one it has at
> the moment - affordable?
>
> Looking forward to the becauses and buts
>
> Deirdre
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/6fd14c1a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Apr 20 20:04:42 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:04:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6WLqFJpSjqMCyoT=NHQ4cH43DOk_A5HeAZ0J3zNNasEQ@mail.gmail.com>

Colleagues,
During the discussion of recent internet governance related meetings I
don't remember seeing any comments about the steady erosion of remote
participation or even webcasts.
Considering the area being discussed by these meetings this seems to me to
be a very serious loss.
How do others feel?
Deirdre

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150420/d97c5109/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From judith at jhellerstein.com  Mon Apr 20 23:02:37 2015
From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:02:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6WLqFJpSjqMCyoT=NHQ4cH43DOk_A5HeAZ0J3zNNasEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMz5XN6WLqFJpSjqMCyoT=NHQ4cH43DOk_A5HeAZ0J3zNNasEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5535BDCD.1040000@jhellerstein.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150420/f18714f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Mon Apr 20 23:15:16 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:15:16 +0800
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6WLqFJpSjqMCyoT=NHQ4cH43DOk_A5HeAZ0J3zNNasEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMz5XN6WLqFJpSjqMCyoT=NHQ4cH43DOk_A5HeAZ0J3zNNasEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <67E5F4D4-3AEC-4745-AA8F-8E4478FCD1BC@difference.com.au>

This is a serious issue. We strongly need to encourage and expand remote participation, not decrease it.

Remote participation in the form of webcasts and assigned remote participation people to ask questions on behalf of remote participants is a bare minimum. Improving remote participation by whatever means -  mechanisms such as properly staffed remote hubs, screens so that remote participant comments are visible to those in the room, enabling telepresence panellist participation, etc spring to mind -  should be the what we are aiming for, not just maintaining the minimal levels of participation.

While multi-stakeholder processes may be much more open than those gatekeepered by governments, they will remain the province of a relatively small elite unless we can ensure that physical travel is not a necessity for participation. I think we currently do this OK for working group style processes, we don’t do it at all well for higher level processes.

Regards

David

> On 21 Apr 2015, at 8:04 am, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Colleagues,
> During the discussion of recent internet governance related meetings I don't remember seeing any comments about the steady erosion of remote participation or even webcasts.
> Considering the area being discussed by these meetings this seems to me to be a very serious loss.
> How do others feel?
> Deirdre
> 
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/9899b748/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Apr 21 08:17:46 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:17:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] Creatures of the machine?
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6Oa9gpNjA0ePFVqvYBwr=KCjYijr=CqLO6YOhmuSqBEQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Colleagues,

Following my concern about the apparent discontinuation of webcasts – which
allow us at least to observe what is happening – and remote participation –
which allows us to join in – I have another concern about which I would be
grateful for some feedback.

When we discuss internet governance issues, there seems to be a sense of
“them” and “us”, with “them” being the big bad wolves and “us” being the
innocent and virtuous lambs, incapable of protecting ourselves. There is a
strong feeling that we are helpless in the face of the marauders.  Are we?
Are we incapable of manipulating the truth? (Under 13 year olds wanting
social media accounts don’t seem to feel any constraint) Do we obediently
accept whatever the search engine offers us as “the best option” or even
“the truth”? Can we no longer communicate with family and friends except
via social media? Instead of the machine being our creation have we become
the creatures of the machine?

Surely human beings (currently those in the north and west with access to
the internet) have retained some autonomy, including freedom of conscience
and the right to withhold information, the right to say no?

Deirdre

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/44dc571c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pimienta at funredes.org  Tue Apr 21 08:20:22 2015
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:20:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] What does lazyness in Remote Participation is a
 symptom of?
In-Reply-To: <5535BDCD.1040000@jhellerstein.com>
References: <CAMz5XN6WLqFJpSjqMCyoT=NHQ4cH43DOk_A5HeAZ0J3zNNasEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5535BDCD.1040000@jhellerstein.com>
Message-ID: <E1YkX8c-0005D7-Th@igcaucus.org>

Foreseing remote particiption always as a synchronous process 
allowing outsiders to see in real time what happen in a face to face 
encounter and barely "participate" *in the sense of contributing to 
it is a confortable and lazy approach for the lucky ones who can 
attend, for different reasons which can be analyzed (the power hidden 
in attributing traveling budgets). I would call it a distance 
participation alibi... Doing absolutely no effort for remote 
participation is the extreme lazyness and you even loose the alibi.

This appearant lazyness is not neutral indeed: it is a subbtle mean 
to maintain control of a large group of persons by a minoirity (and 
here we are obviously talking about democratic processes),
Not even doing that sort of efforts reveals lack of interest for 
truely democratic processes.
By the way the same lazyness wiuth the same symptoms occurs when 
talking about linguistic diversity ...but this is another subject n'est-ce pas?

What would be the alternative?
Introducing some level of asyncrhonism to the remote participation 
process so to, with proper methodology, allow a real implication of 
the "outsiders" in the face to face process.

Another way of considering face to face encounters for members of a 
virtual community is possible and more prone to obtain truly 
democratic process!
It has to be based in a deep consciousness that when less than 10% of 
a community is meeting face to face, then the center of (democratic) 
gravity of the community remain within the 90% of remote participants 
and then there is a need to provide all the attention to have the 
outsiders not only duly informed of what happen in the non virtual 
place but also to participate in some manner in the debate and even 
more important in the decision making if it has to occur This 
requires obviously a different concept of face to face meeting...

One way is to structure each session with a component close to the 
end to allow this remote participation with a slight asynchronism. 
The same discussion list could channel those contributions or 
sub-lists open for the sake of the device

We have experimented in 2000 with those principles in the MISTICA 
virtual community (http://funredes.org/mistica ) and we can claim 
some success (Spanish description of the methodology can be read in 
http://www.funredes.org/mistica/francais/cyberotheque/participants/docuparti/esp_pad_02.html 
and the very process can be checked across the mailing during the 
meetings and in the events reporting).

If there is one single fact which is essentialy meaningful in our 
experience is to obtain that face to face participants deeply 
understand they did not represent the whole community (only a 
minority of luckiest member) and that their collective decision could 
not be considered democratic unless some minimum effort was made to 
have the remaining majority of the community involved not only in 
watching the process but also in participating to decisions through 
designed channels.
Note: one of the funniest side effect of the device was the 
possibility left to the face to face attendees to also participate at 
distance which makes sense when there are parallel sessions (but also 
to the session they were attending showing the emergence of some 
interesting  fractal effects in the democratic process).

I do not see any progress here made here on those approaches... only 
regression and we are again and again in the subttle dictature of 
those who get fundings.

We shall not forget though that what is at stake here is the nature 
of our democratic process.

Note: I have been in an ICANN meeting attempting to do the same in a 
synchronous manner: the moderator (Vint Cerf) gave sequentially the 
floor to people in the meeting or to people at distance. It was 
indeed interesting and somehow spectacular...but the choice of who 
speaks at distance was not systematized and as often the spectacular 
is less important that the impacting which could emerge of a well 
designed method of asynchrous participation of the majority of 
members in a meeting of a minority of them...

By the way who really believe that participative democracy will 
function in a synchronous manner. Just imaginate the chaos of a one 
millon people deliberative assembly!


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


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

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Tue Apr 21 09:24:27 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:24:27 +0200
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <67E5F4D4-3AEC-4745-AA8F-8E4478FCD1BC@difference.com.au>
References: <CAMz5XN6WLqFJpSjqMCyoT=NHQ4cH43DOk_A5HeAZ0J3zNNasEQ@mail.gmail.com> <67E5F4D4-3AEC-4745-AA8F-8E4478FCD1BC@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <C45544F8-26BD-44C0-BBCE-1C89BD0FF1E4@consensus.pro>

While I am sure we all agree with the sentiment - and I am certain that I’m relatively spoiled as I attend anything in Geneva in person - it would be helpful to see some examples of meetings where this is a problem, and especially, where annual meetings have decreased remote participation options.

> On 21 Apr 2015, at 05:15, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
> This is a serious issue. We strongly need to encourage and expand remote participation, not decrease it.
> 
> Remote participation in the form of webcasts and assigned remote participation people to ask questions on behalf of remote participants is a bare minimum. Improving remote participation by whatever means -  mechanisms such as properly staffed remote hubs, screens so that remote participant comments are visible to those in the room, enabling telepresence panellist participation, etc spring to mind -  should be the what we are aiming for, not just maintaining the minimal levels of participation.
> 
> While multi-stakeholder processes may be much more open than those gatekeepered by governments, they will remain the province of a relatively small elite unless we can ensure that physical travel is not a necessity for participation. I think we currently do this OK for working group style processes, we don’t do it at all well for higher level processes.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
>> On 21 Apr 2015, at 8:04 am, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Colleagues,
>> During the discussion of recent internet governance related meetings I don't remember seeing any comments about the steady erosion of remote participation or even webcasts.
>> Considering the area being discussed by these meetings this seems to me to be a very serious loss.
>> How do others feel?
>> Deirdre
>> 
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/331e6c97/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr  Tue Apr 21 09:39:01 2015
From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo))
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <C45544F8-26BD-44C0-BBCE-1C89BD0FF1E4@consensus.pro>
References: <C45544F8-26BD-44C0-BBCE-1C89BD0FF1E4@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <983628311.1820373.1429623541251.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Hi De,Trying to understand your point... 
Do you mean there is less remote participation possibilities offered for international IG meetings?
Thanks for clarifying for me,A 
------------------------------------------------------Arsène Tungali,Co-founder and Executive Director, Rudi InternationalFounder, Mabingwa Forum
Work email: arsenebaguma at gmail.comFacebook - Twitter - LinkedInInternet Governance - Blogger - ISOC Member - ICANN Fellow - IGF Fellow.Democratic Republic of Congo 


     Le Mardi 21 avril 2015 15h32, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> a écrit :
   

 While I am sure we all agree with the sentiment - and I am certain that I’m relatively spoiled as I attend anything in Geneva in person - it would be helpful to see some examples of meetings where this is a problem, and especially, where annual meetings have decreased remote participation options.

> On 21 Apr 2015, at 05:15, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
> This is a serious issue. We strongly need to encourage and expand remote participation, not decrease it.
> 
> Remote participation in the form of webcasts and assigned remote participation people to ask questions on behalf of remote participants is a bare minimum. Improving remote participation by whatever means -  mechanisms such as properly staffed remote hubs, screens so that remote participant comments are visible to those in the room, enabling telepresence panellist participation, etc spring to mind -  should be the what we are aiming for, not just maintaining the minimal levels of participation.
> 
> While multi-stakeholder processes may be much more open than those gatekeepered by governments, they will remain the province of a relatively small elite unless we can ensure that physical travel is not a necessity for participation. I think we currently do this OK for working group style processes, we don’t do it at all well for higher level processes.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
>> On 21 Apr 2015, at 8:04 am, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Colleagues,
>> During the discussion of recent internet governance related meetings I don't remember seeing any comments about the steady erosion of remote participation or even webcasts.
>> Considering the area being discussed by these meetings this seems to me to be a very serious loss.
>> How do others feel?
>> Deirdre
>> 
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

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

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


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/0eed5270/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 21 10:29:13 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:29:13 -0700
Subject: [governance] What does lazyness in Remote Participation is a
 symptom of?
In-Reply-To: <E1YkX8h-0005Gp-Qs@igcaucus.org>
References: <CAMz5XN6WLqFJpSjqMCyoT=NHQ4cH43DOk_A5HeAZ0J3zNNasEQ@mail.gmail.com> <5535BDCD.1040000@jhellerstein.com> <E1YkX8h-0005Gp-Qs@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <01a501d07c3f$8a5f9c50$9f1ed4f0$@gmail.com>

Excellent comments by Daniel and David.  Overall, of course the issue is not
the methods of participation (the "how") but rather the objectives of the
participation the ("why" and "what for").  

And only to add or reiterate that facilitating remote participation is the
wrong terminology -- we should be talking about how to facilitate
"participation" using a variety of methods--face to face, synchronous,
asynchronous--whatever makes most sense in the context and in pursuit of the
objectives of the process.  

If as Daniel says the objective is democratic governance then a process
needs to be designed including the various modalities for achieving
democratic governance.  If the objective is "participation" as a "spectacle"
so that someone can check "remote inclusion" off on a checklist then that is
something else entirely.

M 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Pimienta
Sent: April 21, 2015 5:20 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] What does lazyness in Remote Participation is a
symptom of?

Foreseing remote particiption always as a synchronous process allowing
outsiders to see in real time what happen in a face to face encounter and
barely "participate" *in the sense of contributing to it is a confortable
and lazy approach for the lucky ones who can attend, for different reasons
which can be analyzed (the power hidden in attributing traveling budgets). I
would call it a distance participation alibi... Doing absolutely no effort
for remote participation is the extreme lazyness and you even loose the
alibi.

This appearant lazyness is not neutral indeed: it is a subbtle mean to
maintain control of a large group of persons by a minoirity (and here we are
obviously talking about democratic processes), Not even doing that sort of
efforts reveals lack of interest for truely democratic processes.
By the way the same lazyness wiuth the same symptoms occurs when talking
about linguistic diversity ...but this is another subject n'est-ce pas?

What would be the alternative?
Introducing some level of asyncrhonism to the remote participation process
so to, with proper methodology, allow a real implication of the "outsiders"
in the face to face process.

Another way of considering face to face encounters for members of a virtual
community is possible and more prone to obtain truly democratic process!
It has to be based in a deep consciousness that when less than 10% of a
community is meeting face to face, then the center of (democratic) gravity
of the community remain within the 90% of remote participants and then there
is a need to provide all the attention to have the outsiders not only duly
informed of what happen in the non virtual place but also to participate in
some manner in the debate and even more important in the decision making if
it has to occur This requires obviously a different concept of face to face
meeting...

One way is to structure each session with a component close to the end to
allow this remote participation with a slight asynchronism. 
The same discussion list could channel those contributions or sub-lists open
for the sake of the device

We have experimented in 2000 with those principles in the MISTICA virtual
community (http://funredes.org/mistica ) and we can claim some success
(Spanish description of the methodology can be read in
http://www.funredes.org/mistica/francais/cyberotheque/participants/docuparti
/esp_pad_02.html
and the very process can be checked across the mailing during the meetings
and in the events reporting).

If there is one single fact which is essentialy meaningful in our experience
is to obtain that face to face participants deeply understand they did not
represent the whole community (only a minority of luckiest member) and that
their collective decision could not be considered democratic unless some
minimum effort was made to have the remaining majority of the community
involved not only in watching the process but also in participating to
decisions through designed channels.
Note: one of the funniest side effect of the device was the possibility left
to the face to face attendees to also participate at distance which makes
sense when there are parallel sessions (but also to the session they were
attending showing the emergence of some interesting  fractal effects in the
democratic process).

I do not see any progress here made here on those approaches... only
regression and we are again and again in the subttle dictature of those who
get fundings.

We shall not forget though that what is at stake here is the nature of our
democratic process.

Note: I have been in an ICANN meeting attempting to do the same in a
synchronous manner: the moderator (Vint Cerf) gave sequentially the floor to
people in the meeting or to people at distance. It was indeed interesting
and somehow spectacular...but the choice of who speaks at distance was not
systematized and as often the spectacular is less important that the
impacting which could emerge of a well designed method of asynchrous
participation of the majority of members in a meeting of a minority of
them...

By the way who really believe that participative democracy will function in
a synchronous manner. Just imaginate the chaos of a one millon people
deliberative assembly!


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.




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

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Apr 21 11:28:20 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:28:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <983628311.1820373.1429623541251.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <C45544F8-26BD-44C0-BBCE-1C89BD0FF1E4@consensus.pro> <983628311.1820373.1429623541251.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4714RRAw7U0D8B_rpwSF3b2aTqZRpSDzS_DR1tNuiuBw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Arsene,
It used to be (my observation) that meetings concerning the internet had a
default position of trying to make their proceedings accessible online - if
you are discussing a communication tool it seems good sense also to use it.
However recently (again my observation) this practice has become less
common. The ITU, the IGF and ICANN do their best within their financial
capabilities, some institutions having larger budgets than others.
"[I]nternational IG meetings" is something of an awkward construct since
the majority of IG meetings are international in nature - in their speakers
and/or their participants.

I checked (not as carefully as I might have done - my non-virtual life is
quite busy at the moment) for remote access to the meeting in the Hague.
Judith says that remote access was available, but I would propose that the
links were rather less easy to find than is usual with a meeting of that
size. Recently I became aware of a meeting to be held in Malta at the end
of the month. I was interested to attend so asked about remote
participation. I was told that they were trying but the budget probably
wouldn't stretch so far.
I hope this clarifies my original message.

I agree with Daniel, David and Michael - participation is crucially
important, and in the context of the internet should NOT be measured in
terms of physical presence.

Best wishes
Deirdre

On 21 April 2015 at 09:39, Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo) <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr>
wrote:

> Hi De,
> Trying to understand your point...
> Do you mean there is less remote participation possibilities offered for
> international IG meetings?
>
> Thanks for clarifying for me,
> A
> *------------------------------------------------------*
> *Arsène Tungali,*
> Co-founder and Executive Director, Rudi International
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org/>
> Founder, Mabingwa Forum <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/>
>
> Work email: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/arsenebaguma> - Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/arsenebaguma> - LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/arsene-tungali/40/825/344/>
> Internet Governance - Blogger - ISOC Member - ICANN Fellow - IGF Fellow.
> Democratic Republic of Congo
>
>
>
>   Le Mardi 21 avril 2015 15h32, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
> a écrit :
>
>
> While I am sure we all agree with the sentiment - and I am certain that
> I’m relatively spoiled as I attend anything in Geneva in person - it would
> be helpful to see some examples of meetings where this is a problem, and
> especially, where annual meetings have decreased remote participation
> options.
>
> > On 21 Apr 2015, at 05:15, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > This is a serious issue. We strongly need to encourage and expand remote
> participation, not decrease it.
> >
> > Remote participation in the form of webcasts and assigned remote
> participation people to ask questions on behalf of remote participants is a
> bare minimum. Improving remote participation by whatever means -
> mechanisms such as properly staffed remote hubs, screens so that remote
> participant comments are visible to those in the room, enabling
> telepresence panellist participation, etc spring to mind -  should be the
> what we are aiming for, not just maintaining the minimal levels of
> participation.
> >
> > While multi-stakeholder processes may be much more open than those
> gatekeepered by governments, they will remain the province of a relatively
> small elite unless we can ensure that physical travel is not a necessity
> for participation. I think we currently do this OK for working group style
> processes, we don’t do it at all well for higher level processes.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > David
> >
> >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 8:04 am, Deirdre Williams <
> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Colleagues,
> >> During the discussion of recent internet governance related meetings I
> don't remember seeing any comments about the steady erosion of remote
> participation or even webcasts.
> >> Considering the area being discussed by these meetings this seems to me
> to be a very serious loss.
> >> How do others feel?
> >> Deirdre
> >>
> >> --
> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/1948aaa0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 21 11:50:32 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:50:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: World Forum for Democracy on "Freedom vs control
 for a democratic response" (Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2015):
 www.world-forum-democracy.org
In-Reply-To: <6A0E017DCDD67B4F9566E1578A420C3F8D2CDC15@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int>
References: <6A0E017DCDD67B4F9566E1578A420C3F8D2CDC15@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6LakEgQ9SiFYcMbBCg-pGDrJNOyWJMZpnF1LsrVbm2iQ@mail.gmail.com>

Does the IGC have any ideas to suggest?
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: HIBBARD Lee <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>
Date: 21 April 2015 at 11:47
Subject: World Forum for Democracy on "Freedom vs control for a democratic
response" (Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2015): www.world-forum-democracy.org
To: "governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org" <
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
Cc: WILLERS Rabea <Rabea.WILLERS at coe.int>


 The Council of Europe would like to invite organisations worldwide to
express their interest in presenting either an example/initiative or an
idea to respond to security threats in a way that preserves the basic
principles of democracy such as freedom of expression, public deliberation,
and the privacy of citizens, by answering the questionnaire and sending it
to *forum_democracy at coe.int* <forum_democracy at coe.int> by 15 May 2015. The
World Forum Task Force will select the most interesting and relevant
proposals in June 2015.

For the first time, the Forum will not only showcase already existing
initiatives, but also innovative, untested ideas  to maintain and develop
democracy’s basic principles in times of increasing security threats.

The fourth edition of the World Forum for Democracy, to take place on 18-20
November 2015, will focus on the challenges democracies face in addressing
security risks without jeopardising freedom and democratic stability.

Initiatives and ideas to be presented and assessed at the forum will
roughly fall under the four key categories:

    - How much control kills democracy?
   - Freedom from fear in a diverse society?
   - Is learning of democratic culture adequate today?
   - Is freedom of expression and information a reality?


One presenter for the selected initiatives/ideas will be invited to
Strasbourg to take part in the World Forum. A number of funded places is
available. Any public or private organisation is eligible to apply.




*World Forum for Democracy Secretariat*
Directorate General of Democracy
Council of Europe
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Email:   *forum_democracy at coe.int* <forum_democracy at coe.int>
*www.world-forum-democracy.org* <http://www.world-forum-democracy.org/>
*www.facebook.com/WFDemocracy* <http://www.facebook.com/WFDemocracy>
@WFDemocracy


























































-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/b5b8e092/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Apr 21 12:09:27 2015
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:09:27 -0500
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4714RRAw7U0D8B_rpwSF3b2aTqZRpSDzS_DR1tNuiuBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C45544F8-26BD-44C0-BBCE-1C89BD0FF1E4@consensus.pro>
 <983628311.1820373.1429623541251.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CAMz5XN4714RRAw7U0D8B_rpwSF3b2aTqZRpSDzS_DR1tNuiuBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALCecM8qRGAZ5bTE2-EC68Cqy_4hgPfifqoNWqnNute8eyzL2g@mail.gmail.com>

There is no doubt that we must keep this issue alive, and address problems
as they arise, and, even more, work to plan/prevent them. The IGF in
particular, is doing its best to make sure that each meeting has better
online participation than the last. This MAG (2015) is putting high
priority on online participation in meetings. If you have any comments or
suggestions that we should take into account, or just that you want to
reiterate, feel free to email me virginiap at diplomacy.edu.
Thanks,
Ginger

Ginger (Virginia) Paque
DiploFoundation

*DiploFoundation upcoming online courses:* http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
* <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>*


On 21 April 2015 at 10:28, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Arsene,
> It used to be (my observation) that meetings concerning the internet had a
> default position of trying to make their proceedings accessible online - if
> you are discussing a communication tool it seems good sense also to use it.
> However recently (again my observation) this practice has become less
> common. The ITU, the IGF and ICANN do their best within their financial
> capabilities, some institutions having larger budgets than others.
> "[I]nternational IG meetings" is something of an awkward construct since
> the majority of IG meetings are international in nature - in their speakers
> and/or their participants.
>
> I checked (not as carefully as I might have done - my non-virtual life is
> quite busy at the moment) for remote access to the meeting in the Hague.
> Judith says that remote access was available, but I would propose that the
> links were rather less easy to find than is usual with a meeting of that
> size. Recently I became aware of a meeting to be held in Malta at the end
> of the month. I was interested to attend so asked about remote
> participation. I was told that they were trying but the budget probably
> wouldn't stretch so far.
> I hope this clarifies my original message.
>
> I agree with Daniel, David and Michael - participation is crucially
> important, and in the context of the internet should NOT be measured in
> terms of physical presence.
>
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
> On 21 April 2015 at 09:39, Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo) <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi De,
>> Trying to understand your point...
>> Do you mean there is less remote participation possibilities offered for
>> international IG meetings?
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying for me,
>> A
>> *------------------------------------------------------*
>> *Arsène Tungali,*
>> Co-founder and Executive Director, Rudi International
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org/>
>> Founder, Mabingwa Forum <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/>
>>
>> Work email: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
>> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/arsenebaguma> - Twitter
>> <http://twitter.com/arsenebaguma> - LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/arsene-tungali/40/825/344/>
>> Internet Governance - Blogger - ISOC Member - ICANN Fellow - IGF Fellow.
>> Democratic Republic of Congo
>>
>>
>>
>>   Le Mardi 21 avril 2015 15h32, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> While I am sure we all agree with the sentiment - and I am certain that
>> I’m relatively spoiled as I attend anything in Geneva in person - it would
>> be helpful to see some examples of meetings where this is a problem, and
>> especially, where annual meetings have decreased remote participation
>> options.
>>
>> > On 21 Apr 2015, at 05:15, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is a serious issue. We strongly need to encourage and expand
>> remote participation, not decrease it.
>> >
>> > Remote participation in the form of webcasts and assigned remote
>> participation people to ask questions on behalf of remote participants is a
>> bare minimum. Improving remote participation by whatever means -
>> mechanisms such as properly staffed remote hubs, screens so that remote
>> participant comments are visible to those in the room, enabling
>> telepresence panellist participation, etc spring to mind -  should be the
>> what we are aiming for, not just maintaining the minimal levels of
>> participation.
>> >
>> > While multi-stakeholder processes may be much more open than those
>> gatekeepered by governments, they will remain the province of a relatively
>> small elite unless we can ensure that physical travel is not a necessity
>> for participation. I think we currently do this OK for working group style
>> processes, we don’t do it at all well for higher level processes.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 8:04 am, Deirdre Williams <
>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Colleagues,
>> >> During the discussion of recent internet governance related meetings I
>> don't remember seeing any comments about the steady erosion of remote
>> participation or even webcasts.
>> >> Considering the area being discussed by these meetings this seems to
>> me to be a very serious loss.
>> >> How do others feel?
>> >> Deirdre
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>
>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>
>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/9beb8113/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Tue Apr 21 12:10:34 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:10:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] [CFP] Fifth International Symposium on Data-driven
 Process Discovery and Analysis
Message-ID: <029a01d07c4d$b27a2620$176e7260$@unimi.it>

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP]

 

****************************************************************************
*

SIMPDA 2015

FIFTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON DATA-DRIVEN PROCESS DISCOVERY AND ANALYSIS

9-11 DECEMBER, 2015 - VIENNA, AUSTRIA

 <http://simpda2015.di.unimi.it> http://simpda2015.di.unimi.it 

****************************************************************************
*

 

** About SIMPDA

With the increasing automation of business processes, growing amounts of
process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for
business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6
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 Vienna, a city in the UNESCO World Heritage List.

        

** Call for Papers

The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and
Analysis (SIMPDA 2014) 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 of CEUR
workshop series. 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 2015
(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 of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:

- Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods

- Lightweight Process Model

- Data-aware and data-centric approaches

- Process Mining with Big Data

- Variability and configuration of process models

- 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

 

** IMPORTANT DATES

 

- Paper Submission: 25 September 2015

 

- Submission of PhD Presentations: 25 September 2015

 

- Notification of Acceptance: 07 November 2015

 

- Submission of Camera Ready Papers: 21 November 2015

 

- Second International Symposium on Process Data: 9-11 December 2015

 

- Post-proceeding submissions: 30 March 2016

 

** 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 5 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

 

- Visual Analytics meets Process Mining: Challenges and Opportunities

  Theresia Gschwandtner and Silvia Miksch

  Vienna University of Technology

 

- Contextualisation Techniques in Process Mining

  Schahram Dustdar

  Vienna University of Technology, Austria

 

** Organizers

 

CHAIRS 

- Stefanie Rinderle-Ma, Universität Wien, Austria

- Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

 

ADVISORY BOARD 

- Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

- Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria

- Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands

- Philippe Cudré-Mauroux , University of Fribourg, Switzerland

 

** Program Committee

- MOHAMED ACHEMLAL, UNIVERSITY OF BORDEAUX, FRANCE

- MARCO ANISETTI, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO, ITALY

- IRENE VANDERFEESTEN, EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, THE NETHERLANDS

- CLAUDIO ARDAGNA, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO, ITALY

- HELEN BALINSKY, HEWLETT-PACKARD LABORATORIES, UK

- MIRCO BIANCO, METROCONSULT ROBERTO DINI AND PARTNERS, ITALY

- JOOS BUIJS, EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, THE NETHERLANDS

- ANTONIO CAFORIO, UNIVERSITÀ DEL SALENTO, ITALY

- CAROLINA CHIAO, UNIVERSITY OF ULM, GERMANY

- TONY CLARK, MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY, UK

- BARABARA WEBER, UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA

- PAUL COTOFREI, UNIVERSITY OF NEUCHÂTEL, SWITZERLAND

- PHILIPPE CUDRE-MAUROUX, UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG, SWITZERLAND

- NORA CUPPENS, ÉCOLE NATIONALE SUPÉRIEURE DES TELECOMMUNICATIONS DE
BRETAGNE, FRANCE

- GIANLUCA DEMARTINI, UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD, UK.

- CLAUDIO DI CICCIO, WU VIENNA, AUSTRIA

- SCHAHRAM DUSTDAR, VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, AUSTRIA

- GREGOR GRAMBOW, UNIVERSITY OF ULM, GERMANY

- CHRISTIAN GUETL, UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ, AUSTRIA

- MOHAND-SAID HACID, UNIVERSITY OF LYON, FRANCE

- VINCENT HILAIRE, UNIVERSITÉ DE TECHNOLOGIE DE BELFORT MONTBÉLIARD, FRANCE

- WEI-CHIANG HONG, ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CHINA

- MUSTAFA JARRAR, BIRZEIT UNIVERSITY, PALESTINE

- MEIKO JENSEN, RUHR-UNI­VER­SI­TY BO­CHUM, GERMANY

- MASSIMO MECELLA, SAPIENZA UNIVERSITÀ DI ROMA, ITALY

- JAN MENDLING, WU VIENNA, AUSTRIA

- KWANGHOON PIO KIM, KYONGGI UNIVERSITY, SOUTH KOREA.

- BARBARA RUSSO, FREE UNIVERSITY OF BOZEN - BOLZANO, ITALY

- GIOVANNA SISSA, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI GENOVA, ITALY

- MAURICE VAN KEULEN, UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE, THE NETHERLANDS

- MATTHIAS WEIDLICH, IMPERIAL COLLEGE, UK

- ISABELLA SEEBER, UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA

- ZEESHAN PERVEZ, UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF SCOTLAND, UK

- MARCIN WYLOT, UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG, SWITZERLAND

- JOSE JACOBO ZUBCOFF, UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTE, SPAIN

- WILFRIED GROSSMANN, UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA, AUSTRIA

- KARIMA BOUDAOUD, ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE NICE SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS, 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. 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/127cd15c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Tue Apr 21 12:20:14 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:20:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4714RRAw7U0D8B_rpwSF3b2aTqZRpSDzS_DR1tNuiuBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C45544F8-26BD-44C0-BBCE-1C89BD0FF1E4@consensus.pro>
 <983628311.1820373.1429623541251.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CAMz5XN4714RRAw7U0D8B_rpwSF3b2aTqZRpSDzS_DR1tNuiuBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk37OViLqw1HtBssmrtbvuQ58kEeVWHhMMsQBYxMnqC-SA@mail.gmail.com>

Recently ISOC has been using Zoom http://zoom.us for remote participation
in internal meetings (in preference to Webex, which suffered from terrible
audio). It's certainly easy and flexible.

However I am told that it is not very accessible for blind users.

j

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Arsene,
> It used to be (my observation) that meetings concerning the internet had a
> default position of trying to make their proceedings accessible online - if
> you are discussing a communication tool it seems good sense also to use it.
> However recently (again my observation) this practice has become less
> common. The ITU, the IGF and ICANN do their best within their financial
> capabilities, some institutions having larger budgets than others.
> "[I]nternational IG meetings" is something of an awkward construct since
> the majority of IG meetings are international in nature - in their speakers
> and/or their participants.
>
> I checked (not as carefully as I might have done - my non-virtual life is
> quite busy at the moment) for remote access to the meeting in the Hague.
> Judith says that remote access was available, but I would propose that the
> links were rather less easy to find than is usual with a meeting of that
> size. Recently I became aware of a meeting to be held in Malta at the end
> of the month. I was interested to attend so asked about remote
> participation. I was told that they were trying but the budget probably
> wouldn't stretch so far.
> I hope this clarifies my original message.
>
> I agree with Daniel, David and Michael - participation is crucially
> important, and in the context of the internet should NOT be measured in
> terms of physical presence.
>
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
> On 21 April 2015 at 09:39, Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo) <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi De,
>> Trying to understand your point...
>> Do you mean there is less remote participation possibilities offered for
>> international IG meetings?
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying for me,
>> A
>> *------------------------------------------------------*
>> *Arsène Tungali,*
>> Co-founder and Executive Director, Rudi International
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org/>
>> Founder, Mabingwa Forum <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/>
>>
>> Work email: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
>> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/arsenebaguma> - Twitter
>> <http://twitter.com/arsenebaguma> - LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/arsene-tungali/40/825/344/>
>> Internet Governance - Blogger - ISOC Member - ICANN Fellow - IGF Fellow.
>> Democratic Republic of Congo
>>
>>
>>
>>   Le Mardi 21 avril 2015 15h32, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> While I am sure we all agree with the sentiment - and I am certain that
>> I’m relatively spoiled as I attend anything in Geneva in person - it would
>> be helpful to see some examples of meetings where this is a problem, and
>> especially, where annual meetings have decreased remote participation
>> options.
>>
>> > On 21 Apr 2015, at 05:15, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is a serious issue. We strongly need to encourage and expand
>> remote participation, not decrease it.
>> >
>> > Remote participation in the form of webcasts and assigned remote
>> participation people to ask questions on behalf of remote participants is a
>> bare minimum. Improving remote participation by whatever means -
>> mechanisms such as properly staffed remote hubs, screens so that remote
>> participant comments are visible to those in the room, enabling
>> telepresence panellist participation, etc spring to mind -  should be the
>> what we are aiming for, not just maintaining the minimal levels of
>> participation.
>> >
>> > While multi-stakeholder processes may be much more open than those
>> gatekeepered by governments, they will remain the province of a relatively
>> small elite unless we can ensure that physical travel is not a necessity
>> for participation. I think we currently do this OK for working group style
>> processes, we don’t do it at all well for higher level processes.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 8:04 am, Deirdre Williams <
>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Colleagues,
>> >> During the discussion of recent internet governance related meetings I
>> don't remember seeing any comments about the steady erosion of remote
>> participation or even webcasts.
>> >> Considering the area being discussed by these meetings this seems to
>> me to be a very serious loss.
>> >> How do others feel?
>> >> Deirdre
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>
>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>
>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/e794809b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 21 12:29:59 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:29:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk37OViLqw1HtBssmrtbvuQ58kEeVWHhMMsQBYxMnqC-SA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C45544F8-26BD-44C0-BBCE-1C89BD0FF1E4@consensus.pro>
 <983628311.1820373.1429623541251.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAMz5XN4714RRAw7U0D8B_rpwSF3b2aTqZRpSDzS_DR1tNuiuBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk37OViLqw1HtBssmrtbvuQ58kEeVWHhMMsQBYxMnqC-SA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5GnHF1=qnLofV1j3198EDH5cknwLVO6rL8npaban9=Vg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Joly,
I'm so glad you replied to give me a chance to say a very public thank you
for your faithful notifications of what's going on.
THANK YOU
Deirdre

On 21 April 2015 at 12:20, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

> Recently ISOC has been using Zoom http://zoom.us for remote participation
> in internal meetings (in preference to Webex, which suffered from terrible
> audio). It's certainly easy and flexible.
>
> However I am told that it is not very accessible for blind users.
>
> j
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Deirdre Williams <
> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Arsene,
>> It used to be (my observation) that meetings concerning the internet had
>> a default position of trying to make their proceedings accessible online -
>> if you are discussing a communication tool it seems good sense also to use
>> it. However recently (again my observation) this practice has become less
>> common. The ITU, the IGF and ICANN do their best within their financial
>> capabilities, some institutions having larger budgets than others.
>> "[I]nternational IG meetings" is something of an awkward construct since
>> the majority of IG meetings are international in nature - in their speakers
>> and/or their participants.
>>
>> I checked (not as carefully as I might have done - my non-virtual life is
>> quite busy at the moment) for remote access to the meeting in the Hague.
>> Judith says that remote access was available, but I would propose that the
>> links were rather less easy to find than is usual with a meeting of that
>> size. Recently I became aware of a meeting to be held in Malta at the end
>> of the month. I was interested to attend so asked about remote
>> participation. I was told that they were trying but the budget probably
>> wouldn't stretch so far.
>> I hope this clarifies my original message.
>>
>> I agree with Daniel, David and Michael - participation is crucially
>> important, and in the context of the internet should NOT be measured in
>> terms of physical presence.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Deirdre
>>
>> On 21 April 2015 at 09:39, Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo) <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi De,
>>> Trying to understand your point...
>>> Do you mean there is less remote participation possibilities offered for
>>> international IG meetings?
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying for me,
>>> A
>>> *------------------------------------------------------*
>>> *Arsène Tungali,*
>>> Co-founder and Executive Director, Rudi International
>>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org/>
>>> Founder, Mabingwa Forum <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/>
>>>
>>> Work email: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
>>> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/arsenebaguma> - Twitter
>>> <http://twitter.com/arsenebaguma> - LinkedIn
>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/arsene-tungali/40/825/344/>
>>> Internet Governance - Blogger - ISOC Member - ICANN Fellow - IGF Fellow.
>>> Democratic Republic of Congo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   Le Mardi 21 avril 2015 15h32, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
>>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> While I am sure we all agree with the sentiment - and I am certain that
>>> I’m relatively spoiled as I attend anything in Geneva in person - it would
>>> be helpful to see some examples of meetings where this is a problem, and
>>> especially, where annual meetings have decreased remote participation
>>> options.
>>>
>>> > On 21 Apr 2015, at 05:15, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > This is a serious issue. We strongly need to encourage and expand
>>> remote participation, not decrease it.
>>> >
>>> > Remote participation in the form of webcasts and assigned remote
>>> participation people to ask questions on behalf of remote participants is a
>>> bare minimum. Improving remote participation by whatever means -
>>> mechanisms such as properly staffed remote hubs, screens so that remote
>>> participant comments are visible to those in the room, enabling
>>> telepresence panellist participation, etc spring to mind -  should be the
>>> what we are aiming for, not just maintaining the minimal levels of
>>> participation.
>>> >
>>> > While multi-stakeholder processes may be much more open than those
>>> gatekeepered by governments, they will remain the province of a relatively
>>> small elite unless we can ensure that physical travel is not a necessity
>>> for participation. I think we currently do this OK for working group style
>>> processes, we don’t do it at all well for higher level processes.
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> >
>>> > David
>>> >
>>> >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 8:04 am, Deirdre Williams <
>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Colleagues,
>>> >> During the discussion of recent internet governance related meetings
>>> I don't remember seeing any comments about the steady erosion of remote
>>> participation or even webcasts.
>>> >> Considering the area being discussed by these meetings this seems to
>>> me to be a very serious loss.
>>> >> How do others feel?
>>> >> Deirdre
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >>
>>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >>
>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/ee4a66c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 21 13:12:40 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
Message-ID: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com>

http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557

 

Interesting perspective and more information .

 

So what precisely was "CS" doing at this meeting and having their
participation presented as being in "general agreement" with the Chairman's
Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
unicorn
<https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/another-example-of-multistakehold
er-governance-in-action-the-global-cyberspace-15-unicorn/> ?

 

Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating "CS"
organizations and individuals?

  

M

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/646ecd53/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Tue Apr 21 13:46:52 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:46:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5GnHF1=qnLofV1j3198EDH5cknwLVO6rL8npaban9=Vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C45544F8-26BD-44C0-BBCE-1C89BD0FF1E4@consensus.pro>
 <983628311.1820373.1429623541251.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAMz5XN4714RRAw7U0D8B_rpwSF3b2aTqZRpSDzS_DR1tNuiuBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM9VJk37OViLqw1HtBssmrtbvuQ58kEeVWHhMMsQBYxMnqC-SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN5GnHF1=qnLofV1j3198EDH5cknwLVO6rL8npaban9=Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3X07ys0YL+diT2U1h52uWbTy7ca7SR4q-RgU_jU0cF-w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Joly,
> I'm so glad you replied to give me a chance to say a very public thank you
> for your faithful notifications of what's going on.
> THANK YOU
>

​Here's one going on right now I only just found out about .
http://www.gobernanzainternet.org/en/

​



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/d344da08/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Apr 21 15:32:33 2015
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:32:33 +0000
Subject: [governance] Fwd: World Forum for Democracy on "Freedom vs
 control for a democratic response" (Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2015):
 www.world-forum-democracy.org
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6LakEgQ9SiFYcMbBCg-pGDrJNOyWJMZpnF1LsrVbm2iQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6A0E017DCDD67B4F9566E1578A420C3F8D2CDC15@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int>,<CAMz5XN6LakEgQ9SiFYcMbBCg-pGDrJNOyWJMZpnF1LsrVbm2iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <890765ee2e1e45eaa77a60c678658e6f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Hi Deirdre,



This may be an opportune time for me to - reintroduce - the IGC to the Open Specifications Model.



Some may recall I have shared with the list and invited comments and contributions to earlier versions since 2012.



The reason I propose the Open Specifications Model offers a framework possibly worth discussing in Strasburg, is that it addresses both open - access, and control, of - everything, ever reachable across the Internet of Things.



Since the Internet of us humans is already substantially smaller than the machine to machine to application to - thing virtual/physical space I am suggesting we should be more concerned about human rights and control of the Internet of Things too.



 I further suggest that endorsement by IGC, and recognition by COE, would be a forward-looking way to address cyberphysical privacy and " respond to security threats in a way that preserves the basic principles of democracy such as freedom of expression, public deliberation, and the privacy of citizens" I acknowledge this may or may not be seen as relevant to IGC, and the COE event ie too geeky? - but I will advocate for it as an example of a privacy and security by open participatory/multistakeholder/democratic design approach.



Which can enable Nnenna's eloquent call for access to all of the Internet, all of the time, by everyone; even if the Open Spec itself is written mainly in tech-speak.

The Open Specifications Model v0.3 itself is shown on p.9 of the doc, which is available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274754770_Open_Specifications_Model_v0.3_Wireless_Grids_Internet_of_Things_Technical_Requirements

 which includes mainly techncal information on how to openly connect - anything - physical, virtual, or mixed - with enhanced privacy and security, cloud to edge.



Particular relevance to the IGC list and possibly to the Strasbourg event is that I have - cleverly? ; ) - embedded the Charter on Internet Rights and Principles in the draft document, as well as the Open Standards model - and perhaps even more cleverly ; )  the critique of that standards document's democratic deficit by IGC's Michael Gurstein already in the draft v0.3 document. Other  relevant placeholder draft text developed in part by my own students, reference legal, economics, and policy safeguards as components to be - voluntarily - adopted in present and future Internet of Things implementations. Meaning, to the extent IGC desires, IGC can rewrite the core Economics, Legal, and Policy component of the open specifications model, for v0.4 and possible presentation in Strasburg.



How - unanimous? ; ) - IGC may be in backing this, of course remains to be seen.



Anyway, apologies for spamming the list with a techier and longer than usual message; more details on what I am - imagining? is in the PS.



If IGC does not care to pursue, no problem and never mind, but just remember I invited - everyone - to contribute to v0.4 of the Open Specifications Model.



thanks,



Lee McKnight

Syracuse University



PS: More background and thoughts:

Others in IGC, Best-Bits, the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles, and/or CSISAC can either agree or decline to put this forward as a possible contribution to this COE or other events.  (I do not need to attend the Strasburg event myself or be the speaker, as I am just providing some - intellectual/technical/policy architectural substance - which could be shared there. Or not.) Since we are a very long way from version 1.0, there is time for many many more to contribute, worldwide, in wikipedia-like fashion as the doc and use cases are drafted and redrafted, and new use cases published by - whomever.  I was anticicipating releasing a version 0.4 by spring/summer 2016; but if IGC folks buy into this proposal, and wish to edit/enhance the admittedly skimpy sections of direct relevance to the Strasburg event (note pp. 21-23 on the Economic Legal and Policy Component, and note the 10 Internet Rights and Principles at p. 23; link to NetMundial outcomes could/should be added; and anything else suitable as well. Please note I am happy to continue to act as editor; until such time some more regularized and transparent procedure can be developed for my continuance or resignation from that responsibility.



This doc itself (enhanced by - any of you all as are moved to write and edit text - could then possibly be a backgrounder/reference work accompanying a tidier summary document developed within IGC, is my intial proposal for the COE event; ie version 0.4 could be co-authored by as many IGC colleagues as wish to do so, along with myself and student/faculty colleagues. Already, faculty and students from US,  European, African, Caribbean, Latin American and Asian nations and universities have developed the first three drafts to the still admittedly incomplete point at which it now stands.



Which nonetheless provides a framework for connecting - anything to virtually anything, human, physical, or - neither.  Software defined networks/network function virtualization, and software definbed radios are some of the core technologies included, as well as cloud orchestration, containerization and tokenization with the wireless grids ad hoc network approach for dynmiac sharing of physiical and virtual resources which we have been evolving since 2002.



Credit and acknowledgement also of interactions with Open Grid Forum, IEEE, TM Forum, CABA, IETF, ISOC, ETSI, W3C, and Open Stack Forum, among other standards oprganizations for prototyping and architecture definition and refinement should be noted and hence the firms and individuals participating there; as should OECD for engaging as a partner in the effort since the exploratory launch of this effort with US National Science Foundation Partherships for Innovation support in 2009, and potentially also going forward.



Finally, the fact that the very first submission to a standards organization (on inter-system mobility management) was to ITU way back in 2003, may make some of my IGC friends - happier? : )  As faculty and students we did not have budget to keep up with ITU at that level, but can no doubt can re-sync with ITU if/when desired; and as appropriate. Most likely around 5G - open specifications; whether direct with ITU or via 5GPP.









________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:50 AM
To: Internet Governance
Subject: [governance] Fwd: World Forum for Democracy on "Freedom vs control for a democratic response" (Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2015): www.world-forum-democracy.org

Does the IGC have any ideas to suggest?
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: HIBBARD Lee <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int<mailto:Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>>
Date: 21 April 2015 at 11:47
Subject: World Forum for Democracy on "Freedom vs control for a democratic response" (Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2015): www.world-forum-democracy.org<http://www.world-forum-democracy.org/>
To: "governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>>
Cc: WILLERS Rabea <Rabea.WILLERS at coe.int<mailto:Rabea.WILLERS at coe.int>>


The Council of Europe would like to invite organisations worldwide to express their interest in presenting either an example/initiative or an idea to respond to security threats in a way that preserves the basic principles of democracy such as freedom of expression, public deliberation, and the privacy of citizens, by answering the questionnaire and sending it to forum_democracy at coe.int<mailto:forum_democracy at coe.int> by 15 May 2015. The World Forum Task Force will select the most interesting and relevant proposals in June 2015.

For the first time, the Forum will not only showcase already existing initiatives, but also innovative, untested ideas  to maintain and develop democracy's basic principles in times of increasing security threats.

The fourth edition of the World Forum for Democracy, to take place on 18-20 November 2015, will focus on the challenges democracies face in addressing security risks without jeopardising freedom and democratic stability.

Initiatives and ideas to be presented and assessed at the forum will roughly fall under the four key categories:

  *   How much control kills democracy?
  *   Freedom from fear in a diverse society?
  *   Is learning of democratic culture adequate today?
  *   Is freedom of expression and information a reality?


One presenter for the selected initiatives/ideas will be invited to Strasbourg to take part in the World Forum. A number of funded places is available. Any public or private organisation is eligible to apply.



[X]

World Forum for Democracy Secretariat
Directorate General of Democracy
Council of Europe
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Email:   forum_democracy at coe.int<mailto:forum_democracy at coe.int>
www.world-forum-democracy.org<http://www.world-forum-democracy.org/>
www.facebook.com/WFDemocracy<http://www.facebook.com/WFDemocracy>
@WFDemocracy



























































--
"The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/74013b53/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From compsoftnet at gmail.com  Tue Apr 21 18:53:33 2015
From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:53:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6WLqFJpSjqMCyoT=NHQ4cH43DOk_A5HeAZ0J3zNNasEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMz5XN6WLqFJpSjqMCyoT=NHQ4cH43DOk_A5HeAZ0J3zNNasEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGK4d09k8qepm_i2mmL2u=h5bFrfDcb-nyeY=rpqdq+171cirw@mail.gmail.com>

Totally in agreement with Ginger. The remote participation is on the top
list of MAG (2015).

Your suggestions and ideas will be most appreciated as we yarn for
inclusiveness of RP.

Peter
On Apr 21, 2015 1:05 AM, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Colleagues,
> During the discussion of recent internet governance related meetings I
> don't remember seeing any comments about the steady erosion of remote
> participation or even webcasts.
> Considering the area being discussed by these meetings this seems to me to
> be a very serious loss.
> How do others feel?
> Deirdre
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150421/f9dd4824/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From azrak_khan at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 22 03:06:33 2015
From: azrak_khan at hotmail.com (Arzak Khan)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 07:06:33 +0000
Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>

Hi All, 


It was for the first time that I participated in such an event
and my take on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments i.e.
NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for new
laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role played
by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the likes of
Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be protector of
internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure that passing new
laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these growing monopolies from
mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet architecture is based on the
concept of big data and reconnaissance.


The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism”
all looks very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark
world where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries to leverage
them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly than the Global
South and at times against them.  The
growing drive to control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and
geopolitical motivations rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards
should ring bells for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted the geopolitical contest
between few major international actors while rest of us were the participants
or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century statesmanship and international
relations.


Best,


Arzak Khan Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 | Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |


From: gurstein at gmail.com
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015

http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557 Interesting perspective and more information … So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this unicorn? Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS” organizations and individuals?  M   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/40c25599/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Apr 22 03:29:59 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:29:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro>

Dear Arzan,

I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)

I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement, cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."

I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security. All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them do, or whether they do it well. 

The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a zero-sum.

We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.

Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety. Isn't that what we all really want?

I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.

On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
> 
> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century statesmanship and international relations.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Arzak Khan 
> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 | Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
> 
> 
> 
> From: gurstein at gmail.com
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
> 
> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>  
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>  
> Interesting perspective and more information …
>  
> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this unicorn?
>  
> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS” organizations and individuals?
>  
> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/22ee1bca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/22ee1bca/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Wed Apr 22 03:37:42 2015
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:37:42 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com>
 <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <560853578.4929.1429688262148.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n01>

Fairly well seen from your "observatory", dear Arzak Khan  :-)

 

Thanks for this short but useful reminder.

 

Best regards

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack

 

 

 

 

> Message du 22/04/15 09:07
> De : "Arzak Khan" 
> A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" 
> Copie à : "Arzak Khan" 
> Objet : RE: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
> 
>

Hi All,


>

It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.


>

The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century statesmanship and international relations.


>

Best,


> 
Arzak Khan 
Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 | Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |

>

> 
>
From: gurstein at gmail.com
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
> 
>

http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557

 

Interesting perspective and more information …

 

So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this unicorn?

 

Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS” organizations and individuals?

  

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




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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/0dca7349/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 08:55:30 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:55:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: FW: World Forum for Democracy on "Freedom vs
 control for a democratic response" (Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2015):
 www.world-forum-democracy.org
In-Reply-To: <C96845A2D0AE7F4EA8DE7F677523D9ED5654615E@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int>
References: <6A0E017DCDD67B4F9566E1578A420C3F8D2CDC15@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int>
 <CAMz5XN4jZzz3M0LQFYd0igyVD-XZNz8k=P7_E+7KB0m6FsfKTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6A0E017DCDD67B4F9566E1578A420C3F8D2CF39F@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int> <C96845A2D0AE7F4EA8DE7F677523D9ED5654615E@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6_WQZMct=H0HuGKjTK=0q3QXLrrWkvpQCpokh8WXQK8w@mail.gmail.com>

This mail has attached the questionnaire that was missing yesterday.
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: WILLERS Rabea <Rabea.WILLERS at coe.int>
Date: 22 April 2015 at 08:45
Subject: FW: World Forum for Democracy on "Freedom vs control for a
democratic response" (Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2015):
www.world-forum-democracy.org




On 21 April 2015 at 11:47, HIBBARD Lee <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int> wrote:

The Council of Europe would like to invite organisations worldwide to
express their interest in presenting either an example/initiative or an
idea to respond to security threats in a way that preserves the basic
principles of democracy such as freedom of expression, public deliberation,
and the privacy of citizens, by answering the questionnaire and sending it
to forum_democracy at coe.int by 15 May 2015. The World Forum Task Force will
select the most interesting and relevant proposals in June 2015.



For the first time, the Forum will not only showcase already existing
initiatives, but also innovative, untested ideas  to maintain and develop
democracy’s basic principles in times of increasing security threats.



The fourth edition of the World Forum for Democracy, to take place on 18-20
November 2015, will focus on the challenges democracies face in addressing
security risks without jeopardising freedom and democratic stability.



Initiatives and ideas to be presented and assessed at the forum will
roughly fall under the four key categories:

·         How much control kills democracy?

·         Freedom from fear in a diverse society?

·         Is learning of democratic culture adequate today?

·         Is freedom of expression and information a reality?



One presenter for the selected initiatives/ideas will be invited to
Strasbourg to take part in the World Forum. A number of funded places is
available. Any public or private organisation is eligible to apply.









*World Forum for Democracy Secretariat*

Directorate General of Democracy

Council of Europe

F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex

Email:   forum_democracy at coe.int

www.world-forum-democracy.org

www.facebook.com/WFDemocracy

@WFDemocracy


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/a6df3fcf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WFD2015-Call-for-Lab-submissions.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 266240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/a6df3fcf/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WFD2015-Appel-manifestations-interet.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 529408 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/a6df3fcf/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From raquino at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 10:18:28 2015
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:18:28 -0300
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance in Latin America research project
Message-ID: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>

Hello

I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin America
currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of this
Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the way to
main issues in the region.

I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
organizations or professionals I may have missed.

The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
raquino at gmail.com

The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in the
area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d like to
participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an email.

This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in intenet
governance events in Latin America.

Thanks for any help

Renata Aquino Ribeiro

Professor and researcher

IT Campus – Quixadá City

Federal University of Ceará – Brazil

-----

Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America

(Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)

* CITEL

URL: http://www.citel.oas.org

* eLAC

http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp

* LACIGF

http://www.lacigf.org

* LACNIC

http://www.lacnic.net

* LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization

http://www.lactld.org

* LatinoamerICANN

http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>

* LACRALO

http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo

* LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP

http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/

* Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica, Trinidad
e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia, Paraguai,
Uruguai, Argentina

http://www.internetsociety.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/345f71b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 11:06:59 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:06:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>

No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
security.

What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.

This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
"statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
locally-based recourse against our governments through international
con games.

Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
something we have also lost our moorings on.


Seth


On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> Dear Arzan,
>
> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>
> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>
> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
> do, or whether they do it well.
>
> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
> zero-sum.
>
> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>
> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
> Isn't that what we all really want?
>
> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>
> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
> statesmanship and international relations.
>
> Best,
>
> Arzak Khan
> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: gurstein at gmail.com
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>
> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>
>
>
> Interesting perspective and more information …
>
>
>
> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
> unicorn?
>
>
>
> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
> organizations and individuals?
>
>
>
> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

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

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 11:58:33 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:58:33 -0300
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance in Latin America research
 project
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com>


Dear Renata,

it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me, 
that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance" 
and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people 
on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.

Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then 
ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele 
communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the 
external definitions.

In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with 
connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i 
found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name 
Internet.

In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the 
technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to 
understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in 
Brazil.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina


Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
> Hello
>
> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin America
> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of this
> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
> discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the way to
> main issues in the region.
>
> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
> organizations or professionals I may have missed.
>
> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
> raquino at gmail.com
>
> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in the
> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d like to
> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an email.
>
> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in intenet
> governance events in Latin America.
>
> Thanks for any help
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>
> Professor and researcher
>
> IT Campus – Quixadá City
>
> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
>
> -----
>
> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America
>
> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)
>
> * CITEL
>
> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
>
> * eLAC
>
> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
>
> * LACIGF
>
> http://www.lacigf.org
>
> * LACNIC
>
> http://www.lacnic.net
>
> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
>
> http://www.lactld.org
>
> * LatinoamerICANN
>
> http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
>
> * LACRALO
>
> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
>
> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
>
> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
>
> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica, Trinidad
> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia, Paraguai,
> Uruguai, Argentina
>
> http://www.internetsociety.org
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 22 12:02:20 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:32:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance in Latin America research
 project
In-Reply-To: <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com> <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D44E388D-A409-445C-8D1C-677E1548A658@hserus.net>

That is such a gross generalisation.  And a very ignorant one.

What about carlos afonso just to name one individual from that region?


> On 22-Apr-2015, at 9:28 pm, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me, that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance" and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
> 
> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the external definitions.
> 
> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name Internet.
> 
> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in Brazil.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/016c1050/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Apr 22 12:28:04 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:28:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl> <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro>

As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.

On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:

> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
> security.
> 
> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
> 
> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
> con games.
> 
> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
> something we have also lost our moorings on.
> 
> 
> Seth
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>> Dear Arzan,
>> 
>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>> 
>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>> 
>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>> do, or whether they do it well.
>> 
>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>> zero-sum.
>> 
>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>> 
>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>> 
>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>> 
>> 
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>> 
>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>> statesmanship and international relations.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Arzak Khan
>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>> 
>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>> unicorn?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>> organizations and individuals?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/1a1d47c5/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dan.oppermann at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 12:33:03 2015
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:33:03 -0300
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance in Latin America research
 project
In-Reply-To: <D44E388D-A409-445C-8D1C-677E1548A658@hserus.net>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<5537C529.2000405@gmail.com>
	<D44E388D-A409-445C-8D1C-677E1548A658@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAK-7itCT9WsLv4OWoyjHmV4FCQvamyZeSQGcx=f4-fCoQHpbXw@mail.gmail.com>

Of course there are people in this region who work with Internet Governance.
Renata, me passa um email e a gente conversa.


Best
Daniel

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
wrote:

> That is such a gross generalisation.  And a very ignorant one.
>
> What about carlos afonso just to name one individual from that region?
>
>
> On 22-Apr-2015, at 9:28 pm, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me,
> that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance" and
> what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people on
> this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
>
> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then ypu
> can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
> communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the
> external definitions.
>
> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with connections
> to the international discussions about Internet. Never i found people with
> a critical thinking to that, what we give the name Internet.
>
> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
> technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
> understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
> Brazil.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/e1f57bfd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 12:58:14 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:58:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>

Exactly so.  :-)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
<nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>> security.
>>
>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>
>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>> con games.
>>
>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>
>>
>> Seth
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>
>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>
>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>
>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>
>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>> zero-sum.
>>>
>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>
>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>
>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>
>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Arzak Khan
>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>
>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>> unicorn?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 13:04:10 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:04:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com>

I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
"locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
:-)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly so.  :-)
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>> security.
>>>
>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>
>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>> con games.
>>>
>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seth
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>
>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>
>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>
>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>
>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>
>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>
>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>
>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>> unicorn?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>

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

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Apr 22 13:18:07 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:18:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl> <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com> <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro>

I'm afraid I disagree here: IHRL is binding upon states and that's well accepted and understood. Of course they are given force in national law, which may be your point...
 
On 22 Apr 2015, at 19:04, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:

> I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
> the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
> pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
> "locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
> :-)
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Exactly so.  :-)
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>> 
>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>>> security.
>>>> 
>>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>> 
>>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>>> con games.
>>>> 
>>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Seth
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>>> unicorn?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/0952791b/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From matthias.kettemann at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 13:56:51 2015
From: matthias.kettemann at gmail.com (Matthias C. Kettemann)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:56:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com> <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <-7591330608739216868@unknownmsgid>

And IHR are adjudicated regularly by international courts and tribunals.

Kind regards
Matthias


> Am 22.04.2015 um 19:18 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>:
>
> I'm afraid I disagree here: IHRL is binding upon states and that's well accepted and understood. Of course they are given force in national law, which may be your point...
>
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 19:04, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
>> the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
>> pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
>> "locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
>> :-)
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Exactly so.  :-)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>>> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>>>> security.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>>>> con games.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>>>> unicorn?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>  http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>   bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>   http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 14:10:52 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:10:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com> <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBx4JFZdibjMBF3XRYRzqSSE6wfZZAqQHFPG-9KB=_=xKg@mail.gmail.com>

Binding doesn't make it fundamental.  The best standard of review
you'll ever get from an intergovernmental agreement is a "balancing"
standard.  That's because it's not an expression of the priority of
the people and their rights.  There's a huge difference between a
government set in limits by its people (which means your rights are
fundamental -- they are a trump card even on duly enacted acts of
elected legislatures), and intergovernmental acts.  When they say we
need to balance the war on terror and "human rights" they're really
simply stating a truism: national interests like "national security"
are weighed against rights (inevitably subjectively, by judges who
have no legal basis to do otherwise).  Rights don't win, they just
"are borne in mind."  Fundamental rights are a trump card.

The biggest problem with intergovernmental acts is that they are in
fact binding without the forms of recourse we the people claim in
relation to our governments at the domestic level.  We the people DO
NOT have those forms of recourse internationally, because we never
claimed them properly (by an exercise of constituent power, writing
and enacting the limits we the people set on our governments in
founding acts).  We only have words that look like it,
enacted by governments.  That creates at best "statutory" rights --
and not very good ones even as far as that goes.

FYI, there's a ridiculous section 8 in the present Fast Track bill:

8. SOVEREIGNTY
(a) UNITED STATES LAW TO PREVAIL IN EVENT OF CONFLICT.—No provision of
any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b), nor the
application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that
is inconsistent with any law of the United States, any State of the
United States, or any locality of the United States shall have effect.
(b) AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS OF UNITED STATES LAW.—No provision of
any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b) shall prevent the
United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the
United States from amending or modifying any law of the United States,
that State, or that locality (as the case may be).
(c) DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS.—Reports, including findings and
recommendations, issued by dispute settlement panels convened pursuant
to any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b) shall have no
binding effect on the law of the United States, the Government of the
United States, or the law or government of any State or locality of
the United States.


This means exactly nothing.  All it says is that nations could act to
the contrary of executive branch treaty acts -- a truism.  b and c are
new in these kinds of things, and also particularly deceptive.  c just
means you're subject to settlements under treaties regardless of
national law -- until you change the law.

This isn't about rights as such (unless in the broadest conception of
a right to self-determination by people(s)), but a perfect example of
how deceptive the game is.


Seth



On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> I'm afraid I disagree here: IHRL is binding upon states and that's well accepted and understood. Of course they are given force in national law, which may be your point...
>
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 19:04, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
>> the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
>> pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
>> "locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
>> :-)
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Exactly so.  :-)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>>> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>>>
>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>>>> security.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>>>> con games.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>>>> unicorn?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 14:11:50 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:11:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <-7591330608739216868@unknownmsgid>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro> <-7591330608739216868@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxJEihtbkwr=vmg_rN74-j_Wi=WV_g1shTF4bJNhPSHDw@mail.gmail.com>

Right.  See my note to Nick.  :-)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Matthias C. Kettemann
<matthias.kettemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> And IHR are adjudicated regularly by international courts and tribunals.
>
> Kind regards
> Matthias
>
>
>> Am 22.04.2015 um 19:18 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>:
>>
>> I'm afraid I disagree here: IHRL is binding upon states and that's well accepted and understood. Of course they are given force in national law, which may be your point...
>>
>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 19:04, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
>>> the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
>>> pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
>>> "locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Exactly so.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>>>> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>>>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>>>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>>>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>>>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>>>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>>>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>>>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>>>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>>>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>>>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>>>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>>>>> con games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>>>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>>>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>>>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>>>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>>>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>>>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>>>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>>>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>>>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>>>>> unicorn?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>  http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>   bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>   http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>

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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 15:35:47 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:35:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBx4JFZdibjMBF3XRYRzqSSE6wfZZAqQHFPG-9KB=_=xKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx4JFZdibjMBF3XRYRzqSSE6wfZZAqQHFPG-9KB=_=xKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwR7aa6GaUuw8oMKzQF0m7qFkQiqwYi1XHv2h=WD02g8A@mail.gmail.com>

(small insert at bottom)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Binding doesn't make it fundamental.  The best standard of review
> you'll ever get from an intergovernmental agreement is a "balancing"
> standard.  That's because it's not an expression of the priority of
> the people and their rights.  There's a huge difference between a
> government set in limits by its people (which means your rights are
> fundamental -- they are a trump card even on duly enacted acts of
> elected legislatures), and intergovernmental acts.  When they say we
> need to balance the war on terror and "human rights" they're really
> simply stating a truism: national interests like "national security"
> are weighed against rights (inevitably subjectively, by judges who
> have no legal basis to do otherwise).  Rights don't win, they just
> "are borne in mind."  Fundamental rights are a trump card.
>
> The biggest problem with intergovernmental acts is that they are in
> fact binding without the forms of recourse we the people claim in
> relation to our governments at the domestic level.  We the people DO
> NOT have those forms of recourse internationally, because we never
> claimed them properly (by an exercise of constituent power, writing
> and enacting the limits we the people set on our governments in
> founding acts).  We only have words that look like it,
> enacted by governments.  That creates at best "statutory" rights --
> and not very good ones even as far as that goes.
>
> FYI, there's a ridiculous section 8 in the present Fast Track bill:
>
> 8. SOVEREIGNTY
> (a) UNITED STATES LAW TO PREVAIL IN EVENT OF CONFLICT.—No provision of
> any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b), nor the
> application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that
> is inconsistent with any law of the United States, any State of the
> United States, or any locality of the United States shall have effect.
> (b) AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS OF UNITED STATES LAW.—No provision of
> any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b) shall prevent the
> United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the
> United States from amending or modifying any law of the United States,
> that State, or that locality (as the case may be).
> (c) DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS.—Reports, including findings and
> recommendations, issued by dispute settlement panels convened pursuant
> to any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b) shall have no
> binding effect on the law of the United States, the Government of the
> United States, or the law or government of any State or locality of
> the United States.
>
>
> This means exactly nothing.  All it says is that nations could act to
> the contrary of executive branch treaty acts -- a truism.


All it says is that *The United States* could act to the contrary on
its executive branch's treaty acts.

(eom)


> b and c are
> new in these kinds of things, and also particularly deceptive.  c just
> means you're subject to settlements under treaties regardless of
> national law -- until you change the law.
>
> This isn't about rights as such (unless in the broadest conception of
> a right to self-determination by people(s)), but a perfect example of
> how deceptive the game is.
>
>
> Seth
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>> I'm afraid I disagree here: IHRL is binding upon states and that's well accepted and understood. Of course they are given force in national law, which may be your point...
>>
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 19:04, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
>>> the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
>>> pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
>>> "locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Exactly so.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>>>> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>>>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>>>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>>>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>>>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>>>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>>>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>>>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>>>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>>>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>>>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>>>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>>>>> con games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>>>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>>>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>>>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>>>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>>>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>>>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>>>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>>>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>>>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>>>>> unicorn?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>

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

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 16:48:58 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:48:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Capacity building assistance offer to digital
 rights advocates
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5j0QRbNk5kv99cc6Z24m=EhbxNHW53C2DMB1=WghHjFg@mail.gmail.com>

From Becky Lentz at McGill in Canada

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Becky Lentz <roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca>
Date: 22 April 2015 at 15:20
Subject: Capacity building assistance offer to digital rights advocates


Dear colleagues,

Greetings from Montreal. As part of an ongoing experiment in cultivating
university-civil society collaborations, I’m writing to invite expressions
of interest from potential civil society partners (for Fall 2015, in the
Americas only, preferably not in Canada or the US) seeking research that
supports their Internet-related policy advocacy work. Of particular
interest are proposals from groups involved in IGF (or considering becoming
involved in them). Other proposals for research assistance are also invited.

As background, previous civil society partners have included Derechos
Digitales (DD) in Santiago and the Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET) in
Kampala. Outcomes for two semester-long projects with DD include the
following research brief, which was developed by students and then
edited/translated/formatted by DD:
https://www.derechosdigitales.org/wp-content/uploads/PP05.pdf; we are now
completing a second project featuring a review of the literature
(scholarly, news, government, and civil society sources) about the benefits
of the IGF for civil society organizations, a report that anticipates the
2015 IGF in Latin America. Testimonials and references from DD
are available about how DD has benefited from both of these collaborations.

The third semester-long project resulted in establishing 3
university-supported internships to help WOUGNET with a variety of capacity
building needs: an Information/ Communications Intern (
http://wougnet.org/2014/02/internship-opportunity-informationcommunications-deadline-28th-february/),
a Technical Support Intern (
https://www.mcgill.ca/arts-internships/files/arts-internships/wougnet_tech_support_intern.pdf),
and Gender and ICT Policy Advocacy (
https://www.mcgill.ca/arts-internships/files/arts-internships/wougnet_gender_and_ict_policy_advocacy_0.pdf).
Testimonials and references from WOUGNET are also available.

The process for identifying a civil society partner for the Fall semester
2015 is now underway; it consists of the following steps: 1) an expression
of interest by a potential civil society partner; 2) based on a possible
match, an invitation for a short proposal (template will be provided); and
3) if selected, a jointly-crafted memorandum of understanding (MOU) between
the selected civil society partner and my class. There are no costs to the
partner organization other than a modest commitment of time during the
semester-long project.

If you have advocacy-related research needs and you think a
September-December timeframe for working together with a report available
to you in late December 2015 meets your needs, please feel free to contact
me off-list.

Best,
Becky Lentz
McGill University




-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/ba95a57f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From analia.aspis at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 18:57:48 2015
From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:57:48 -0300
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance in Latin America research
 project
In-Reply-To: <CAK-7itCT9WsLv4OWoyjHmV4FCQvamyZeSQGcx=f4-fCoQHpbXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<5537C529.2000405@gmail.com>
	<D44E388D-A409-445C-8D1C-677E1548A658@hserus.net>
	<CAK-7itCT9WsLv4OWoyjHmV4FCQvamyZeSQGcx=f4-fCoQHpbXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABi6_T_FOE6N6bfunzjoA7bnuG1abu_XbUTuXmurOEQKU=TyrQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Renata,

I am Argentinean, from Latin America, ICT Lawyer and reserchar as well as
IG specialist, with a focus on internationally and regional aspects of
governance. Will be my pleasure to help you.

Cheers,
Analía Aspis

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Daniel Oppermann <dan.oppermann at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Of course there are people in this region who work with Internet
> Governance.
> Renata, me passa um email e a gente conversa.
>
>
> Best
> Daniel
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net
> > wrote:
>
>> That is such a gross generalisation.  And a very ignorant one.
>>
>> What about carlos afonso just to name one individual from that region?
>>
>>
>> On 22-Apr-2015, at 9:28 pm, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me,
>> that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance" and
>> what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people on
>> this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
>>
>> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then ypu
>> can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
>> communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the
>> external definitions.
>>
>> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with connections
>> to the international discussions about Internet. Never i found people with
>> a critical thinking to that, what we give the name Internet.
>>
>> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
>> technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
>> understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
>> Brazil.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/a967bea5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 19:04:25 2015
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 01:04:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <060a01d07b96$7977ce70$6c676b50$@gmail.com>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
	<bd77b5c56c4e44c78f385a69b2872cc3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<060a01d07b96$7977ce70$6c676b50$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGF_KH8UTEN8GVDxOeuaB5eQhi1Cds9TAkH-txBPbxw9H-wrUw@mail.gmail.com>

Michael,

So are non-binding the thousands of "resolutions" produced by UN bodies.
Even the WSIS documents are non binding.

And I hope you will agree that most of them are as much ignoring (very
often more even than the GCCS statement) some key issues civil society
legitimately cares about. All without any contribution from civil society
either.

So two questions:
1) Are non-binding incomplete documents useless in your view - wherever
they come from - or do they contribute somewhat to the ongoing discussion?
Faulty and insufficient efforts but at least efforts.
2) I still fail to grasp what is the model you would like to see
implemented. Are there examples of processes you would like to point as
reference to emulate?

I did not participate in the drafting of the GCCS a declaration but I know
that some CS actors have sincerely tried to contribute and influence.
Nothing is ever perfect and pointing to missing parts as you and some of
them do is a perfectly valid procedure, IMHO.

Hope it moves the discussion.

Best

Bertrand


On Monday, April 20, 2015, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> But surely that is the point of my blogpost
> <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/another-example-of-multistakeholder-governance-in-action-the-global-cyberspace-15-unicorn/>
> Milton… Of course, the GCCS Chairman’s report isn’t “binding”, but nor is
> the NM Outcome document with which the Chairman’s report so closely
> associates itself; and read this below as but one example (from ISOC) among
> an avalanche of others of the ascribed status of this “Multistakeholder”
> document of unknown legitimacy, questionable accountability and no evident
> representivity.
>
>
>
> *Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms*
>
> *http://internetgovernancepanel.org <http://internetgovernancepanel.org>*
>
> *| MAY 2014*
>
>
>
> *I.              **Foundational principles enabling more collaborative
> internet governance*
>
>
>
> *The Panel recognizes, fully supports, and adopts the IG Principles
> produced *
>
> *in the NETmundial Statement, which “identified a set of common principles
> *
>
> *and important values that contribute to an inclusive, multistakeholder,
> effective, *
>
> *legitimate, and evolving IG framework and recognized that the Internet is
> a global *
>
> *resource which should be managed in the public interest” (see Annex 1).
> These *
>
> *NETmundial Principles are fundamental for the operationalization of a
> 21st century, *
>
> *collaborative framework of governance for a unified Internet that is
> unfragmented, *
>
> *interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable,
> and trust *
>
> *building.*
>
>
>
> Either “unicorns” such as the GCCS (or the NetMundial) have status and
> thus should be held publicly accountable to some standards of determining
> legitimacy, accountability, transparency, representivity; or they have no
> status and thus their outcomes should be treated as merely PR statements
> (Press releases/public relations outputs) with no significance or
> legitimacy beyond the opinions of the selected few who have been involved
> in issuing them.
>
>
>
> Clearly they can’t be both and the studied ambiguity of switching from one
> status to the other depending on the intended audience is both fraudulent
> and dangerous.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');>
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');>] *On
> Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller
> *Sent:* April 19, 2015 1:55 PM
> *To:* 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');>'; 'Ian
> Peter'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');>'; '
> forum at justnetcoalition.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','forum at justnetcoalition.org');>'
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS
>
>
>
> I was offered a chance to comment on a draft of the Chair’s statement. I
> have no idea how many others were, but I am sure I was part of some much
> larger list.
>
> I note with satisfaction that certain language about the “abuse” of free
> expression rights, which I objected to, was corrected in the final
> statement.
>
>
>
> I note that other items I didn’t like were not changed, and that some
> aspects related to state surveillance may have been weakened (though it is
> hard to tell because I can’t find the original doc).
>
>
>
> In that respect, the Chair’s statement is typical of a MS gathering; you
> get some of what you want and you don’t get other things. It reflects the
> lowest common denominator of what the collection of folks in the meeting
> could agree to, or what the Chair thought they could agree to.
>
>
>
> The Netmundial statement adopted a far more bottom up and open methodology
> in its development, and thus has greater political significance and
> legitimacy in my opinion, so it would be a mistake to equate the two. But
> in terms of “official” status, neither of them are binding, and in some
> sense both are just statements competing for attention in the increasingly
> crowded bazaar of Internet governance related statements.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');> [
> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');>] *On
> Behalf Of *Ian Peter
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 8:38 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');>;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');>;
> forum at justnetcoalition.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','forum at justnetcoalition.org');>
> *Subject:* [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS
>
>
>
> The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at
> https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf
>
>
>
> CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference
> and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include
> disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and
> proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference
> to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg
> inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this
>
>
>
>
>
> “The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human
> rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and
> security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about
> those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for
> the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such
> violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without
> allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take
> full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people,
> as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that
> are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”
>
>
>
> I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will
> be more later.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>


-- 
"*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de
Saint Exupéry
("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND DE
LA CHAPELLEInternet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail
bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.netemail bdelachapelle at gmail.comtwitter
@IJurisdiction <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> | @bdelachapelle
<https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle>mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
www.internetjurisdiction.net[image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE
PROCESS]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/534443b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 21:15:41 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:15:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: World Forum for Democracy on "Freedom vs
 control for a democratic response" (Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2015):
 www.world-forum-democracy.org
In-Reply-To: <890765ee2e1e45eaa77a60c678658e6f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <6A0E017DCDD67B4F9566E1578A420C3F8D2CDC15@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int>
	<CAMz5XN6LakEgQ9SiFYcMbBCg-pGDrJNOyWJMZpnF1LsrVbm2iQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<890765ee2e1e45eaa77a60c678658e6f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7Afnmi0He3aErC0tqba7KfR8JwsJePmpcqtbveoxYw8Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Lee, Colleagues,
While I can think my way round the Open Standards Model without too much
difficulty I am getting terribly bogged down (strung up?) in the Wireless
Grids.
I think that part of my difficulty (apart that is from the huge part caused
by my not being an engineer) is in working out the relationship between the
"generic" standards that will apply to everything and the details highly
specific to wireless grids. Perhaps a reordering of the material might make
it more accessible?
Does anyone else have an opinion to offer? It would be good to hear from
some IGC people with technical expertise
Deirdre
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150422/68d6b81a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 22 22:12:41 2015
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 02:12:41 +0000
Subject: [governance] Fwd: World Forum for Democracy on "Freedom vs
 control for a democratic response" (Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2015):
 www.world-forum-democracy.org
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7Afnmi0He3aErC0tqba7KfR8JwsJePmpcqtbveoxYw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6A0E017DCDD67B4F9566E1578A420C3F8D2CDC15@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int>
	<CAMz5XN6LakEgQ9SiFYcMbBCg-pGDrJNOyWJMZpnF1LsrVbm2iQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<890765ee2e1e45eaa77a60c678658e6f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>,<CAMz5XN7Afnmi0He3aErC0tqba7KfR8JwsJePmpcqtbveoxYw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e97bea820d4b456bb3fb8b392617f5a3@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Hi Deirdre,


First, agreed the more common jargon/term today is Internet of Things, which will be highlighted more in the next version for sure.


However it is the technical specifics of the 'wireless grid' approach which is in a way the unique value - add of all this, which is why all other standards and industry and policy groups are at least beginning to take this work semi-seriously. For example the Enterprise Cloud Leadership Council collection of (mainly) big bank CIO's acceted this for securing user identities and transactions in a Bring Your Own Device/workplace as a service environment. For that example, see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236107546_Workplace_as_Service_White_Paper_By_Enterprise_Cloud_Leadership_Council


Which matters here only that at least in principle I got those - guys - to accept the components of the approach taken.


Meaning, including the Legal, Economics, and Policy component.


But I agree that all matters much more to people actually trying to interconnect various wireless systems and cloud services, and Things, than Internet governance policy advocates, generally speaking.


Except - noting Nnenna's 'all of the Internet' line in her mantra - this captures that, in 1 image.


Still it may be better for IGCers to step back from the core Tech requirement document as the focus, and perhaps instead describe a Use Case focused on the Freedom v Control theme of the COE event.


That could be plugged into the Open Specifications template used for other use cases, for example for education and social radio, among other things. Although a new IGC-developed use case likely would not be done by mid-May, it could be by time of the event. An example of what I am referring to is:

https://www.academia.edu/4206577/Workplace_as_a_Service_WPaaS_Solves_BYOD_Challenges_Use_Case_Version_0.1_WiGiT_Open_Specifications_for_Wireless_Grids


Which is the open specifications formalization of the Workplace as a Service white paper I referenced above.


Anyway, I understand this whole discussion is geekier than usual for this list; but if IGC really wishes to be in front and setting the agenda for - future governance - of the Internet of Things; I humbly suggest that now is the time and the Open Specifications Model is the place/picture to work from and with.


Or - not; as folks so choose : )


Lee



________________________________
From: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:15 PM
To: Lee W McKnight
Cc: Internet Governance
Subject: RE: [governance] Fwd: World Forum for Democracy on "Freedom vs control for a democratic response" (Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2015): www.world-forum-democracy.org


Dear Lee, Colleagues,
While I can think my way round the Open Standards Model without too much difficulty I am getting terribly bogged down (strung up?) in the Wireless Grids.
I think that part of my difficulty (apart that is from the huge part caused by my not being an engineer) is in working out the relationship between the "generic" standards that will apply to everything and the details highly specific to wireless grids. Perhaps a reordering of the material might make it more accessible?
Does anyone else have an opinion to offer? It would be good to hear from some IGC people with technical expertise
Deirdre
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/7df37cb0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Apr 23 06:22:24 2015
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:22:24 -0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Giponet.org now live
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1WcFUOibCXY2eMeh19CfurgovL-tBLPrPX0vnrGgmGwA@mail.gmail.com>

Information has been sent today about the official launch of the Global
Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO) website. May be of interest.
Best wishes,
Marília

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <Cristina.MONTI at ec.europa.eu>
Date: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:06 AM
Subject: Giponet.org now live
To:
Cc: Maciej.TOMASZEWSKI at ec.europa.eu


 Dear colleagues,

I am glad to announce that the website giponet.org <http://giponet.org/en>
is now live! This website will allow interested stakeholders to get
involved in the creation of the Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO).

Through this website, users will be able to:

   - tell the GIPO team what kind of information they wish to get through
   the Observatory;

 ·         follow online webinars on the project, to directly discuss with
the team how to make the tool work for them. The first webinar
<http://giponet.org/en/content/webinar-introduction-global-internet-policy-observatory-online-platform>
is planned for 30 April;

·         find upcoming workshops <http://giponet.org/en/events> that they
can attend in person to ask questions and contribute their thoughts. The
first such workshop
<http://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Co-designing_the_Global_Internet_Policy_Observatory_%28GIPO%29>
will take place during EuroDIG <http://www.eurodig.org/> on 4 June in Sofia;

·         find information on how the project advances

·         subscribe to the GIPO Newsletter
<http://giponet.org/en/newsletter> and social media channels (Twitter
<https://twitter.com/gipo_net>, Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/115001429269158222435/posts>, Linkedin
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/giponet> and YouTube
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUoP8ZuxRpp0yYtWxI7v0rQ>) to find out
more on the state of play of activities and share ideas and proposals.

A digibyte has also been published on the Digital Agenda website:
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/how-can-we-help-you-get-more-involved-internet-governance



Feel free to spread this information to relevant organisations and
individuals who might be interested in this project.

Thanks and kind regards,

Cristina





*CRISTINA MONTI*
International Relations Officer


*European Commission*
Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology
International Unit

BU25 04/95
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
Office: +32 229 69467 Mobile: +32 460 769467
cristina.monti at ec.europa.eu

Think before you print!





-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/f553cc09/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3898 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/f553cc09/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From emilar at apc.org  Thu Apr 23 07:12:38 2015
From: emilar at apc.org (Emilar Vushe - Gandhi)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:12:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] Call for applications: African School on Internet
 Governance 2015
Message-ID: <5538D3A6.3010101@apc.org>

Dear all,

Please share with all your networks.

The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD
Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA) are pleased to announce the call
for applications for the third African School on Internet Governance.

The call is available here:
https://www.apc.org/en/news/call-applications-third-african-school-internet-go

Deadline: 15 May 2015

For more information contact Dr Towela Nyirenda-Jere at
towelan at nepad.org and Yolanda Mlonzi at afrisig at apc.org

Regards,

-- 
Emilar E. Gandhi
Africa Policy Coordinator
Communications and Information Policy Programme (CIPP)
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org
skype/twitter: emilarvushe

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


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

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

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

From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Thu Apr 23 08:30:25 2015
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:30:25 +0000
Subject: [governance] Call for applications: African School on Internet
 Governance 2015
In-Reply-To: <5538D3A6.3010101@apc.org>
References: <5538D3A6.3010101@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPHv8nQLsYORMS8Gy65wD10rK2u3frem+4LVF+YbiUYttQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear E. Gandhi,

Thank you very much for this insightful program, I have registered but have
not receive my confirmation email, could you please verify to see if my
application have being captured by the database.

I registered with the following details:

Name: Wisdom Kwasi Donkor
Country: Ghana

Kind Regards,


WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)
Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh


On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Emilar Vushe - Gandhi <emilar at apc.org>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Please share with all your networks.
>
> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD
> Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA) are pleased to announce the call
> for applications for the third African School on Internet Governance.
>
> The call is available here:
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/news/call-applications-third-african-school-internet-go
>
> Deadline: 15 May 2015
>
> For more information contact Dr Towela Nyirenda-Jere at
> towelan at nepad.org and Yolanda Mlonzi at afrisig at apc.org
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Emilar E. Gandhi
> Africa Policy Coordinator
> Communications and Information Policy Programme (CIPP)
> Association for Progressive Communications
> www.apc.org
> skype/twitter: emilarvushe
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/174519b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 23 08:31:08 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:31:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: 11th Int'l Conf. on Open
 Source Systems (OSS 2015)
Message-ID: <042c01d07dc1$6084a410$218dec30$@unimi.it>

[Apologies if you receives multiple sending of this Call for PArticipation]

 

****************************************************************************
********

             11th Int'l Conf. on Open Source Systems (OSS 2015)

 

                       Florence, Italy

                       16-17 May, 2015

                       co-located with ICSE 2015

 

                http://www.oss2015.org 

 

                       Sponsored by IFIP WG2.13

 

****************************************************************************
********

 

The 11^th    International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS 2015)
celebrates 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. The OSS conference series
is the leading

research-oriented conference on open source software.

 

Our invited keynote speakers are

 

Paul Fremantle, Co-Founder of WSO2: Building a Commercial Open Source
Software company: a decade of changes

 

and

 

Mike Milinkovich, Executive Director, Eclipse Foundation: How the Eclipse
Community Works

 

The complete program may be seen at
http://www.oss2015.org/conference-program/ 

 

Online registration may be made through the ICSE registration site at
http://2015.icse-conferences.org/registration 

until 8 May, and subsequently on site.

 

We will look forward to seeing you there.

 

****************************************************************************
*******

 

 

Conference leadership

 

General Chair: Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

 

Program Co-Chairs: Dirk Riehle, Friedrich-Alexander-University
Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany

                   Anthony I. (Tony) Wasserman, Carnegie Mellon University -
Silicon Valley, USA

 

Proceedings and Finance Chair: Fulvio Frati,/Università degli Studi di
Milano, Italy

 

****************************************************************************
********

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/60fe9362/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu Apr 23 09:21:53 2015
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:51:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Please Circulate: Announcement
 and Public Comment page for the 2nd Draft!
In-Reply-To: <D15E63EF.18458%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
References: <D15E63EF.18458%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0HkvvRZm6OJhXZvUWc8r6-gNomAk8t0bqRJqs=jqwp60g@mail.gmail.com>

The ICANN Cross Community Working Group on IANA Transition has called for
comments on its second draft proposal:

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:25 PM
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Please Circulate: Announcement and Public
Comment page for the 2nd Draft!
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>


Dear CWG-Stewardship Ambassadors,

Here are two important links to circulate as widely as the multistakeholder
model can reach:

   - Announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en
   - Public Comment page:
   https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en

Also, we have about 30 people registered for each of the webinars tomorrow,
but it would be great to recirculate the webinar announcement again as
well:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en

Thank you!
Grace

2nd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an
IANA Stewardship
Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
*Forum Announcement:*Comment Period Opens on*Date:*22 April 2015
*Categories/Tags:*IANA Stewardship Transition*Purpose (Brief):*

The ICANN Cross Community Working Group responsible for the naming related
portion of the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG-Stewardship)1
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#foot1> seeks public
comment on its 2nd draft proposal for the transition of the stewardship of
the IANA Functions Contract from the U. S. Department of Commerce's NTIA to
the global multistakeholder community. The draft proposal has been prepared
in order to pave the way for a response (the Final Proposal) to the
IANAStewardship
Coordination Group (ICG) request for proposals.

Though less than the required 40-day minimum, this Public Comment period
has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders.
*Public Comment Box Link:*
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
------------------------------

1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#note1> In March
2014, the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition its
stewardship role of the IANA Functions and related Root Zone Management.
ICANN was called upon to facilitate this process, and in June 2014, after a
series of community consultations, ICANN announced the creation of the
IANA Stewardship
Transition Coordination Group (ICG), responsible for preparing a transition
proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of
the IANA Functions. The ICG announced its Request for Proposals in
September 2014, available here:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en.

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/cf0dbd75/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/cf0dbd75/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From valeriab at apc.org  Thu Apr 23 09:44:10 2015
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:44:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin
 America research project
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com> <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com> <1934529599.12787236.1429718968295.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> <1354636193.12787280.1429718996652.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> <CAFC=nJwA5oTqngv34gTCsd8yK=SZzqxg3iGy799Dvnn8X8TiFw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5538F72A.9050808@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Dear Renata,

Just to add to what Renata Avila mentions, I would be also happy to
share with you an overview of the evolution of the LAC IGF process
which started in 2008 as an attempt to offer a platform for political
dialogue among the various stakeholders on internet governance from a
Latin American perspective.
http://www.lacigf.org/en/index.html

It has been a consistent multistakeholder effort around IG since then.
Civil society organisations including NUPEF and APC have been actively
involved since its inception and the space is currently enriched by
the increased participation of governments. Let us know if you want to
have more details about this and other work in the region on IG matters.

Valeria

On 23/04/15 6:26, Renata Avila wrote:
> ​Dear Renata,
> 
> ​I am happy to share with you that actually the Latin American
> community is one of the most robust and developed in different
> areas of digital rights, key to actually take part and meaningfully
> participate in the new "Internet Governance" field. Most of the
> organizations are young but some of them have been around for over
> a decade.
> 
> Derechos Digitales did a fantastic job in creating redlatam.org a
> directory where you will find mapped most  of  the organizations in
> the field and there you can find an interesting catalogue of the
> leadership. You could also see the good work of many in the Latin
> American newsletter http://www.digitalrightslac.net
> 
> There are some disconnects but there are lots of different and
> sometimes diverging people doing high quality job in the field.
> 
> ​Best Regards,
> 
> ​
> 
> ​ On 22 Apr 2015 19:02, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo at nira.org.ng>
> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Reneta, Should you have an question with Africa in
>> perspective, you can ask me. You may also visit the NiGF
>> <http://www.nigf.org.ng>Website for Nigeria.
>> 
>> Regards. -Akinbo President, Young Internet Professionals.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, <laura at article19.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi, Renata You also have a lot of info at
>>> https://redlatam.org/es. Best, Laura.
>>> 
>>> ----- Mensagem original ----- De: "willi uebelherr"
>>> <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> Para: "Renata Aquino"
>>> <raquino at gmail.com> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "1net.org discuss"
>>> <discuss at 1net.org> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015
>>> 12:58:33 Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin
>>> America research project
>>> 
>>> Dear Renata,
>>> 
>>> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America
>>> show me, that there are no people to understand, what is
>>> "Internet Governance" and what we have to do to create a
>>> InterNet. Maybe, also the most people on this lists don't
>>> understand, what we have to do.
>>> 
>>> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different
>>> countries. Then ypu can see and hear, that they don't
>>> understand the themes "tele communication". But they create
>>> decisions. And this always based on the external definitions.
>>> 
>>> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with 
>>> connections to the international discussions about Internet.
>>> Never i found people with a critical thinking to that, what we
>>> give the name Internet.
>>> 
>>> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use
>>> only the technical systems from the external regions. But never
>>> they start to understand the technical bases. And this we find
>>> also in NetMundial in Brazil.
>>> 
>>> many greetings, willi Cordoba, Argentina
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
>>>> Hello
>>>> 
>>>> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in
>>>> Latin
>>> America
>>>> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The
>>>> goal of
>>> this
>>>> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in
>>>> these discussions as well as hearing out experts who could
>>>> point out the way
>>> to
>>>> main issues in the region.
>>>> 
>>>> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out
>>>> resources, organizations or professionals I may have missed.
>>>> 
>>>> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send
>>>> comments to raquino at gmail.com
>>>> 
>>>> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key
>>>> professionals in
>>> the
>>>> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If
>>>> you’d like
>>> to
>>>> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send
>>>> me an
>>> email.
>>>> 
>>>> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the
>>>> future in
>>> intenet
>>>> governance events in Latin America.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for any help
>>>> 
>>>> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>> 
>>>> Professor and researcher
>>>> 
>>>> IT Campus – Quixadá City
>>>> 
>>>> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
>>>> 
>>>> -----
>>>> 
>>>> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin
>>>> America
>>>> 
>>>> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to
>>>> raquino at gmail.com)
>>>> 
>>>> * CITEL
>>>> 
>>>> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
>>>> 
>>>> * eLAC
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
>>>> 
>>>> * LACIGF
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.lacigf.org
>>>> 
>>>> * LACNIC
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.lacnic.net
>>>> 
>>>> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.lactld.org
>>>> 
>>>> * LatinoamerICANN
>>>> 
>>>> http://latinoamericann.org
>>>> <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
>>>> 
>>>> * LACRALO
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
>>>> 
>>>> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
>>>> 
>>>> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
>>>> 
>>>> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa
>>>> Rica,
>>> Trinidad
>>>> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil,
>>>> Bolivia, Paraguai, Uruguai, Argentina
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.internetsociety.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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________ 
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ 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: 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

- -- 

Valeria Betancourt
Directora / Manager
Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication
and Information Policy Programme
Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
Progressive Communications, APC
http://www.apc.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVOPcqAAoJEIWfoWrECEd1sWUH/jNCUdRq9gnyghlTAtvRVC5X
KB266U7lkAsuURJWKFFC6pCPiOTua9CMtmn7R1GuBBy3NpZaRIcZQBT50YUap7O2
4fu0nuFweghFJTSKt3mudQvgnW5h+B4YZhE2vvqc1fRNOkrwLovNnu06sOkWYRNF
BdKLPpCVGDdbyPXYo2BNRZxOUicG1frMkcZDIld6TD5eq8RUmOzyOCOtBaJurey/
A/ZyikM1rLja17bd8K2FRVt0QkW8h3fZu85ONn8k87MQTW7+AXgenZ9pTGuZLdpg
9ONMzFZcy8/s8rLReXZxleh1Fy3zGMcsA58eDT+R6/YY0gtZ42fJt+96CgSgyjM=
=24Xl
-----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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Apr 23 10:30:35 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:30:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin
 America research project
In-Reply-To: <5538FC9F.2000407@apc.org>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com> <1934529599.12787236.1429718968295.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <1354636193.12787280.1429718996652.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <CAFC=nJwA5oTqngv34gTCsd8yK=SZzqxg3iGy799Dvnn8X8TiFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com> <5538FC9F.2000407@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4ONjLyNP42fEkO3aP4WuOSJA_2gJZqB1JiTy6K9KgmVA@mail.gmail.com>

Perhaps its worth adding that, having established off list that C (the
Caribbean) was included, I have circulated the request here as well. And
that there are appropriate places to circulate it to. :-)
Deirdre

On 23 April 2015 at 10:07, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear all
>
> I want to strongly support Renata Avila's comments.
>
> While I am not based in LAC my organisation, Association for Progressive
> Communications has several members there and are part of a very active
> community. They include Derechos Digitales, Colnodo, Nupef, Nodo Tau,
> Radio Viva, Instituto Demos, EslaRed and Sula Batsu.
>
> Also going back in history, LAC civil society provided leadership in
> raising issues on media ownership and control, free and open source
> software and social justice and communications and human rights - during
> the WSIS and before and after.
>
> But of course these movements are never as inclusive as they should be,
> and people change (in governments and in civil society) so the process
> of creating and debate and awareness can never stop.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 23/04/2015 13:26, Renata Avila wrote:
> > ​Dear Renata,
> >
> > ​I am happy to share with you that actually the Latin American community
> is
> > one of the most robust and developed in different areas of digital
> rights,
> > key to actually take part and meaningfully participate in the new
> "Internet
> > Governance" field. Most of the organizations are young but some of them
> > have been around for over a decade.
> >
> > Derechos Digitales did a fantastic job in creating redlatam.org a
> directory
> > where you will find mapped most  of  the organizations in the field and
> > there you can find an interesting catalogue of the leadership. You could
> > also see the good work of many in the Latin American newsletter
> > http://www.digitalrightslac.net
> >
> > There are some disconnects but there are lots of different and sometimes
> > diverging people doing high quality job in the field.
> >
> > ​Best Regards,
> >
> > ​
> >
> > ​
> > On 22 Apr 2015 19:02, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo at nira.org.ng> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Reneta,
> >> Should you have an question with Africa in perspective, you can ask me.
> >> You may also visit the NiGF <http://www.nigf.org.ng>Website for
> Nigeria.
> >>
> >> Regards.
> >> -Akinbo
> >> President, Young Internet Professionals.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, <laura at article19.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Renata
> >>> You also have a lot of info at https://redlatam.org/es.
> >>> Best,
> >>> Laura.
> >>>
> >>> ----- Mensagem original -----
> >>> De: "willi uebelherr" <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
> >>> Para: "Renata Aquino" <raquino at gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "
> 1net.org
> >>> discuss" <discuss at 1net.org>
> >>> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015 12:58:33
> >>> Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
> >>> project
> >>>
> >>> Dear Renata,
> >>>
> >>> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show
> me,
> >>> that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance"
> >>> and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most
> people
> >>> on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
> >>>
> >>> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then
> >>> ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
> >>> communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the
> >>> external definitions.
> >>>
> >>> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with
> >>> connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i
> >>> found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name
> >>> Internet.
> >>>
> >>> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
> >>> technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
> >>> understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
> >>> Brazil.
> >>>
> >>> many greetings, willi
> >>> Cordoba, Argentina
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
> >>>> Hello
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin
> >>> America
> >>>> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of
> >>> this
> >>>> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
> >>>> discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the way
> >>> to
> >>>> main issues in the region.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
> >>>> organizations or professionals I may have missed.
> >>>>
> >>>> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
> >>>> raquino at gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in
> >>> the
> >>>> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d
> like
> >>> to
> >>>> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an
> >>> email.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in
> >>> intenet
> >>>> governance events in Latin America.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for any help
> >>>>
> >>>> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
> >>>>
> >>>> Professor and researcher
> >>>>
> >>>> IT Campus – Quixadá City
> >>>>
> >>>> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
> >>>>
> >>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America
> >>>>
> >>>> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)
> >>>>
> >>>> * CITEL
> >>>>
> >>>> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
> >>>>
> >>>> * eLAC
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACIGF
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.lacigf.org
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACNIC
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.lacnic.net
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.lactld.org
> >>>>
> >>>> * LatinoamerICANN
> >>>>
> >>>> http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACRALO
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
> >>>>
> >>>> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
> >>>>
> >>>> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
> >>>>
> >>>> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica,
> >>> Trinidad
> >>>> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia,
> Paraguai,
> >>>> Uruguai, Argentina
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.internetsociety.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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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:
> >      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
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/9949a693/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From raquino at gmail.com  Thu Apr 23 14:32:21 2015
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:32:21 -0300
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin
 America research project
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4ONjLyNP42fEkO3aP4WuOSJA_2gJZqB1JiTy6K9KgmVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com> <1934529599.12787236.1429718968295.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <1354636193.12787280.1429718996652.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <CAFC=nJwA5oTqngv34gTCsd8yK=SZzqxg3iGy799Dvnn8X8TiFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5538FC9F.2000407@apc.org> <CAMz5XN4ONjLyNP42fEkO3aP4WuOSJA_2gJZqB1JiTy6K9KgmVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMwTSFU7JK8zynoLbTbTCdmevH48H84vTyXOQUJpsWuKPw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Deirdre and all

Indeed, thanks for noticing that, in my message do please consider Latin
America and the Caribbean Region
And although the short list sent included only the main organizations
acting on the continent which I could find, I am trying to gather
references too of national, local and NGO organizations.
Please do forward the request and bear with me as I reply to each one of
you :)

And many thanks

[]s



------
Renata Aquino Ribeiro
Prof. Dr.
IT Campus - Quixadá City
Federal University of Ceará - Brazil
www.quixada.ufc.br
Av. José de Freitas Queiroz, 5003
Cedro - Quixadá - Ceará - Brazil
CEP 63902-580


On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps its worth adding that, having established off list that C (the
> Caribbean) was included, I have circulated the request here as well. And
> that there are appropriate places to circulate it to. :-)
> Deirdre
>
> On 23 April 2015 at 10:07, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I want to strongly support Renata Avila's comments.
>>
>> While I am not based in LAC my organisation, Association for Progressive
>> Communications has several members there and are part of a very active
>> community. They include Derechos Digitales, Colnodo, Nupef, Nodo Tau,
>> Radio Viva, Instituto Demos, EslaRed and Sula Batsu.
>>
>> Also going back in history, LAC civil society provided leadership in
>> raising issues on media ownership and control, free and open source
>> software and social justice and communications and human rights - during
>> the WSIS and before and after.
>>
>> But of course these movements are never as inclusive as they should be,
>> and people change (in governments and in civil society) so the process
>> of creating and debate and awareness can never stop.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23/04/2015 13:26, Renata Avila wrote:
>> > ​Dear Renata,
>> >
>> > ​I am happy to share with you that actually the Latin American
>> community is
>> > one of the most robust and developed in different areas of digital
>> rights,
>> > key to actually take part and meaningfully participate in the new
>> "Internet
>> > Governance" field. Most of the organizations are young but some of them
>> > have been around for over a decade.
>> >
>> > Derechos Digitales did a fantastic job in creating redlatam.org a
>> directory
>> > where you will find mapped most  of  the organizations in the field and
>> > there you can find an interesting catalogue of the leadership. You could
>> > also see the good work of many in the Latin American newsletter
>> > http://www.digitalrightslac.net
>> >
>> > There are some disconnects but there are lots of different and sometimes
>> > diverging people doing high quality job in the field.
>> >
>> > ​Best Regards,
>> >
>> > ​
>> >
>> > ​
>> > On 22 Apr 2015 19:02, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo at nira.org.ng> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Reneta,
>> >> Should you have an question with Africa in perspective, you can ask me.
>> >> You may also visit the NiGF <http://www.nigf.org.ng>Website for
>> Nigeria.
>> >>
>> >> Regards.
>> >> -Akinbo
>> >> President, Young Internet Professionals.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, <laura at article19.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi, Renata
>> >>> You also have a lot of info at https://redlatam.org/es.
>> >>> Best,
>> >>> Laura.
>> >>>
>> >>> ----- Mensagem original -----
>> >>> De: "willi uebelherr" <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
>> >>> Para: "Renata Aquino" <raquino at gmail.com>
>> >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "
>> 1net.org
>> >>> discuss" <discuss at 1net.org>
>> >>> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015 12:58:33
>> >>> Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
>> >>> project
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear Renata,
>> >>>
>> >>> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show
>> me,
>> >>> that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance"
>> >>> and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most
>> people
>> >>> on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
>> >>>
>> >>> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then
>> >>> ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
>> >>> communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on
>> the
>> >>> external definitions.
>> >>>
>> >>> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with
>> >>> connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i
>> >>> found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name
>> >>> Internet.
>> >>>
>> >>> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
>> >>> technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
>> >>> understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
>> >>> Brazil.
>> >>>
>> >>> many greetings, willi
>> >>> Cordoba, Argentina
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
>> >>>> Hello
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin
>> >>> America
>> >>>> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of
>> >>> this
>> >>>> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
>> >>>> discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the
>> way
>> >>> to
>> >>>> main issues in the region.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
>> >>>> organizations or professionals I may have missed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
>> >>>> raquino at gmail.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals
>> in
>> >>> the
>> >>>> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d
>> like
>> >>> to
>> >>>> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an
>> >>> email.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in
>> >>> intenet
>> >>>> governance events in Latin America.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks for any help
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Professor and researcher
>> >>>>
>> >>>> IT Campus – Quixadá City
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -----
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * CITEL
>> >>>>
>> >>>> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * eLAC
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACIGF
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.lacigf.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACNIC
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.lacnic.net
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.lactld.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LatinoamerICANN
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACRALO
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica,
>> >>> Trinidad
>> >>>> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia,
>> Paraguai,
>> >>>> Uruguai, Argentina
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.internetsociety.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
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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:
>> >      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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/90745e93/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 23 14:46:23 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:46:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <CAGF_KH8UTEN8GVDxOeuaB5eQhi1Cds9TAkH-txBPbxw9H-wrUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>	<bd77b5c56c4e44c78f385a69b2872cc3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>	<060a01d07b96$7977ce70$6c676b50$@gmail.com> <CAGF_KH8UTEN8GVDxOeuaB5eQhi1Cds9TAkH-txBPbxw9H-wrUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0e7e01d07df5$cc481540$64d83fc0$@gmail.com>

Thanks Bertrand,

 

Serious questions worthy of serious replies…

 

Inline…

 

From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] 
Sent: April 22, 2015 4:04 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Cc: Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS

 

Michael,

 

So are non-binding the thousands of "resolutions" produced by UN bodies. Even the WSIS documents are non binding.

 

And I hope you will agree that most of them are as much ignoring (very often more even than the GCCS statement) some key issues civil society legitimately cares about. All without any contribution from civil society either.

 

[MG] But again you seem to be missing my point … this, as with how the NetMundial Outcome document is being treated, is neither “binding” nor “non-binding” in the UN Multilaterateralist sense… All of that UN stuff, as you  well know, is being deliberately rejected by the MSists, is it not… 

 

The clear intention with the GCCS and similar is to enter into a brave new world of “consensus” multistakeholder decision making where a movable feast of (what I’m calling) “unicorns” create these outcome documents legitimized by the fairy dust of being “multistakeholder” but which in fact are simply managed compacts within the very small circle of committed neo-liberal “stakeholder” elites.  These are then  treated as “foundational” and normatively framing and the basis for the next round of unicorns.  This process of building unicorn on unicorn appears to be proceeding unreflectively and with the active support of “CS”  until it is hoped, the foundations and frameworks are so firmly embedded in norms and informal practices that they are more or less immutable. As I outlined in my blogpost this was the clear intention of the organizers/promoters of the GCCS 2015 and to suggest otherwise is I think rather disingenuous.

 

Even the firmest MSists  seem to agree that the legitimacy of the GCCS 2015, whose multistakeholder and particularly CS credentials are anchored in the actions of what can only be described as an operative of the dominant governmental parties, smells to high heaven. And yet folks go prattling on about these being non-binding—of course, they are non-binding that is precisely the point—nothing “binding” is allowed in this mirror world because if it were “binding” it would need to go through some rather more formal processes with appropriate degrees of scrutiny, transparency, accountability etc.  As with all compacts among elites the “decisions” are being made with a wink and a nod, with the paid retainers doing all the front end work and ultimately being responsible for facilitating “legitimation” in whatever way seems necessary under the circumstances.

 

So two questions:

1) Are non-binding incomplete documents useless in your view - wherever they come from - or do they contribute somewhat to the ongoing discussion? Faulty and insufficient efforts but at least efforts.

 

[MG] No, I think processes such as the GCCS 2015 are fine and even useful if they are presented as what they are, private meetings among circles of paid or co-opted functionaries producing documents of varying levels of interest but always requiring asterisks beside them indicating who were the paymasters and what interests were being served… I would contrast the GCCS with the GCIG for example where, it is fairly clear who and what the GCIG is, who pays them, on what ideological basis the Commissioners were chosen etc.,  and knowing that, one is free to take what they say or leave it without all the attendant folderol of Mulitstakeholder “general agreements” blah blah. They  are an elite group of neo-liberal adherents attempting to come to grips with a very complex and rapidly evolving Internet Governance set of issues. They are what they are and no one with any sense would believe they were anything different and having said that, they are relatively free to advocate what they wish and even to come out with what I think is an excellent report with some very fresh and useful thinking. 

 

2) I still fail to grasp what is the model you would like to see implemented. Are there examples of processes you would like to point as reference to emulate?

 

[MG] It isn’t me who is making outrageous and unsupportable claims for developing strategies and defining frameworks on behalf of us all (since we are all by definition being given voice through one stakeholder or another, no?). I think the process that some of us are initiating through the Internet Social Forum will provide a basis, through open discussion and debate, for developing and articulating a set of positions on Internet Governance that will give voice  to a socially, economically and geographically diverse set of non-elite actors and then through the breadth of the anticipated participation it is expected that these would become the basis for widely based advocacy and intensive work concerning Internet Governance issues through widely dispersed democratic processes. It will be slow and cumbersome but at the very least it will help to define and articulate a rather more legitimate Civil Society set of voices than those handpicked for the GCCS.

 

I did not participate in the drafting of the GCCS a declaration but I know that some CS actors have sincerely tried to contribute and influence. Nothing is ever perfect and pointing to missing parts as you and some of them do is a perfectly valid procedure, IMHO.

 

[MG] But there is a pattern there isn’t there—the NetMundial astonishingly given its co-sponsorship by the Government of Brazil  completely avoided social/economic and surveillance issues, the NMI in its preliminaries again completely avoids those issues, the IGF apparently works to suppress discussion of those issues, and now we have a “global conference on cyber security” that doesn’t even mention matters of social and economic security or surveillance alongside matters of law enforcement and military matters… “You don’t need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing… (and who is controlling the wind machines..

 

Hope it moves the discussion.

 

[MG] not sure if it does but yes,

 

Best,

 

Mike

 

Best

 

Bertrand

 


On Monday, April 20, 2015, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:

But surely that is the point of my blogpost <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/another-example-of-multistakeholder-governance-in-action-the-global-cyberspace-15-unicorn/>  Milton… Of course, the GCCS Chairman’s report isn’t “binding”, but nor is the NM Outcome document with which the Chairman’s report so closely associates itself; and read this below as but one example (from ISOC) among an avalanche of others of the ascribed status of this “Multistakeholder” document of unknown legitimacy, questionable accountability and no evident representivity.

 

Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms

http://internetgovernancepanel.org

| MAY 2014

 

I.              Foundational principles enabling more collaborative internet governance

 

The Panel recognizes, fully supports, and adopts the IG Principles produced 

in the NETmundial Statement, which “identified a set of common principles 

and important values that contribute to an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective, 

legitimate, and evolving IG framework and recognized that the Internet is a global 

resource which should be managed in the public interest” (see Annex 1). These 

NETmundial Principles are fundamental for the operationalization of a 21st century, 

collaborative framework of governance for a unified Internet that is unfragmented, 

interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trust 

building. 

 

Either “unicorns” such as the GCCS (or the NetMundial) have status and thus should be held publicly accountable to some standards of determining legitimacy, accountability, transparency, representivity; or they have no status and thus their outcomes should be treated as merely PR statements (Press releases/public relations outputs) with no significance or legitimacy beyond the opinions of the selected few who have been involved in issuing them.

 

Clearly they can’t be both and the studied ambiguity of switching from one status to the other depending on the intended audience is both fraudulent and dangerous.

 

M 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');> ] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: April 19, 2015 1:55 PM
To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> '; 'Ian Peter'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');> '; 'forum at justnetcoalition.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','forum at justnetcoalition.org');> '
Subject: RE: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS

 

I was offered a chance to comment on a draft of the Chair’s statement. I have no idea how many others were, but I am sure I was part of some much larger list. 

I note with satisfaction that certain language about the “abuse” of free expression rights, which I objected to, was corrected in the final statement. 

 

I note that other items I didn’t like were not changed, and that some aspects related to state surveillance may have been weakened (though it is hard to tell because I can’t find the original doc). 

 

In that respect, the Chair’s statement is typical of a MS gathering; you get some of what you want and you don’t get other things. It reflects the lowest common denominator of what the collection of folks in the meeting could agree to, or what the Chair thought they could agree to.

 

The Netmundial statement adopted a far more bottom up and open methodology in its development, and thus has greater political significance and legitimacy in my opinion, so it would be a mistake to equate the two. But in terms of “official” status, neither of them are binding, and in some sense both are just statements competing for attention in the increasingly crowded bazaar of Internet governance related statements. 

 

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> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html 

 

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');> ] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 8:38 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');> ; forum at justnetcoalition.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','forum at justnetcoalition.org');> 
Subject: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS

 

The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf

 

CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this

 

 

“The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”

 

I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will be more later.

 

 

 

Ian Peter



-- 

	

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry
("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")

	

BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE


Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director


email  <mailto:bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net> bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net


email  <mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com> bdelachapelle at gmail.com


twitter  <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> @IJurisdiction |  <https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle> @bdelachapelle

		

mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

		

 <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net> www.internetjurisdiction.net

	

  <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/InternetJurisdiction-Logo-w300px.png> 

	

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/0ebe82c3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Fri Apr 24 08:37:36 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:37:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <CAGF_KH8UTEN8GVDxOeuaB5eQhi1Cds9TAkH-txBPbxw9H-wrUw@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
 <bd77b5c56c4e44c78f385a69b2872cc3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
 <060a01d07b96$7977ce70$6c676b50$@gmail.com>
 <CAGF_KH8UTEN8GVDxOeuaB5eQhi1Cds9TAkH-txBPbxw9H-wrUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1Ylcps-0005mz-Tf@igcaucus.org>

At 01:04 23/04/2015, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>So two questions:
>1)Â Are non-binding incomplete documents useless in your view - 
>wherever they come from -Â or do they contribute somewhat to the 
>ongoing discussion? Faulty and insufficient efforts but at least efforts.
>2) I still fail to grasp what is the model you would like to see 
>implemented. Are there examples of processes you would like to point 
>as reference to emulate?Â
>
>I did not participate in the drafting of the GCCS a declaration but 
>I know that some CSÂ actors have sincerely tried to contribute and 
>influence. Nothing is ever perfect and pointing to missing parts as 
>you and some of them do is a perfectly valid procedure, IMHO.
>
>Hope it moves the discussion.

We all know that the internet governance is a balance of powers where 
the constraining main power (the capacities of technology) was, until 
a few years ago, contained by the "statUS-quo", rough consensus built 
upon the NTIA's "global Potemkin village".

The international use political and industrial trends (aging of 
TCP/IP, evolution in the national NSAs and CyberDefence procurement 
strategies, market reorganizations, etc.) called for a transition 
plan. This transition plan was designed (RFC 6852, Dubai, Snowden, 
NTIA announcement, NETmundial, etc.) and seems to proceed according 
to plan. It should replace the NTIA protectorate on the internet 
technology, by a US de facto colonial jurisdiction on the whole 
digital ecosystem/catenet.

However, this might be a Truman Show, due to the "permissionless 
innovation" creep. I will not theorize it here. But what we are 
significantly and increasingly observing are indications that the 
"precautionary principle" and "subsidiarity principle" make with it a 
possible fundamental triad for a multitude's holocracy, which could 
be more credible than the multistakeholderist oligarchic model 
proposed by the US.

The current French debate on cybersurveillance is quite interesting 
from an architectonical point of view. As everywhere there is a 
literacy shortage on the concerned matters, but this debate has an 
important difference from other similar debates elsewhere: the 
precautionary principle is in the French Constitution. And the 
consequence is that the US cybersocial/defense strategy that they are 
considering copying might look outdated. As if it was partly mudded 
in the 20th century's ways of thinking.

This may also result from the Libre's weight in here, when compared 
with the importance of the military industrial power in the US. 
Anyway, the option of a "citizens + state" (instead of a "state vs 
citizens") option could become credible. In such a case, the 
technology/source code could freely assume their Lessig's 
"constitutional" role. (As you know, I plead for a "Digitality 
Charter" extending the constitutional "Environment Charter". Such an 
opening would make positions like the current US ones off-balanced 
(you know better as to why France has abstained in Dec 2012?). 
Onbiously it would call for at least a decade - asking for us to 
survive TPP/TAFTA.

In such a case, what would really count is what I call ethitechnics, 
the use of the technology to adapt society's ethics. Based upon the 
idea that you do not change people, but you lead/help them to adapt 
to their new tools and environment. This is why in a multitude's 
society there is no ballot: ballots are replaced by individual 
technological/societal autonomous choices. Are non-committing biased 
governance declarations of no value? Probably, but the mental work of 
their co-authors will shape their individual choices in the 
management of their own local personal network. From there, the new 
Pouzin's "network of networks" catenet will eventually emerge, which 
will be able to adequately support the long delayed new technologies 
and internet stack version (IMHO, not fully compatible with the 
ICANN's paradigm and the NTIA's bet - cf. RFC 6852 consensual 
normative governance mechanism).

It takes time. But, the entire world is "changing tack".

jfc


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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Apr 24 13:10:20 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:10:20 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] NSA spied on EU politicians and
 companies with help from German intelligence
In-Reply-To: <9C5D5370-F8E1-4075-AEEC-0EAE8D8844C1@warpspeed.com>
References: <9C5D5370-F8E1-4075-AEEC-0EAE8D8844C1@warpspeed.com>
Message-ID: <128301d07eb1$8bc614b0$a3523e10$@gmail.com>

 

From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Hendricks Dewayne
Sent: April 24, 2015 8:19 AM
To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] NSA spied on EU politicians and companies with help from German intelligence

 

NSA spied on EU politicians and companies with help from German intelligence
Spies failed to check properly what was being passed across to the US.
By Glyn Moody

Apr 24 2015

<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/nsa-spied-on-eu-politicians-and-companies-with-help-from-german-intelligence/>

 

Germany's intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), has been helping the  <http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/ueberwachung-neue-spionageaffaere-erschuettert-bnd-a-1030191.html> NSA spy on European politicians and companies for years, according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel. The NSA has been sending lists of "selectors"— <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/new-snowden-leak-details-widest-reaching-nsa-digital-surveillance-program/> identifying telephone numbers, e-mail and IP addresses—to the BND, which then provides related information that it holds in its surveillance databases. According to the German newspaper Die Zeit, the NSA sent selector lists several times a day, and  <http://www.zeit.de/digital/datenschutz/2015-04/ueberwachung-bnd-half-nsa-wirtschaftsspionage-europa> altogether 800,000 selectors have been requested.

The BND realized as early as 2008 that some of the selectors were not permitted according to its internal rules, or covered by a 2002 US-Germany anti-terrorism "Memorandum of Agreement" on intelligence cooperation. And yet it did nothing to check the NSA's requests systematically. It was only in the summer of 2013, after Edward Snowden's revelations of massive NSA and GCHQ surveillance, that the BND finally started an inquiry into all the selectors that had been processed.

According to Der Spiegel, investigators found that the BND had provided information on around 2,000 selectors that were clearly against European and German interests. Not only were European businesses such as the giant  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS> aerospace and defense company EADS, best-known as the manufacturer of the Airbus planes, targeted, so were European politicians—including German ones.

However, the BND did not inform the German Chancellor's office, which only found out about the misuse of the selector request system in March 2015. Instead, the BND simply asked the NSA to make requests that were fully covered by the anti-terrorism agreement between the two countries. According to Die Zeit, this was because the BND was worried that the NSA might curtail the flow of its own intelligence data to the German secret services if the selector scheme became embroiled in controversy.

The information about this activity has finally come out thanks to a long-running  <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/snowden-blocked-from-traveling-to-germany-testifying-to-parliament/> committee of inquiry, set up by the German Bundestag (federal parliament), which has been trying to get to the bottom of the NSA activities in Germany, and of the BND's involvement in them. The committee's investigation suggests that as many as 40,000 of the selectors were targeting European and German interests—far more than the 2,000 found by the BND.

There is likely to be considerable political fallout from the latest news. Because of the way the affair has been handled, with the German Chancellor kept in the dark for years, it is widely expected that the head of the BND, Gerhard Schindler, will be forced to resign. News that the BND has been actively helping the NSA to spy on European companies and politicians will also deepen the public's already considerable anger at  <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/germany-accuses-us-of-spying-on-chancellor-angela-merkels-phone/> US surveillance of Germans, first revealed by Snowden's leaks.

That, in its turn, could make it even harder to persuade them to accept the huge US-EU trade agreement currently being negotiated behind closed doors, known as the  <http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/> Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The Germans are already the leading skeptics:  <https://stop-ttip.org/> over a million of them have signed an online petition calling for the TTIP talks to be halted, while  <http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/18/us-trade-protests-germany-idUSKBN0N90LO20150418> thousands took to the streets earlier this month to protest against the proposed deal.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150424/f67201da/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 24 19:12:43 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:12:43 -0700
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
Message-ID: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>

http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/debunking-eight-myths-about-multi-stakeholderism

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150424/055b6cb8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 25 11:43:18 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 08:43:18 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Debunking eight myths about
 multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <21818.58959.476349.342220@world.std.com>
References: <65933FA0-45F0-46DC-A6E8-28E2DF03BAA0@eff.org> <21818.58959.476349.342220@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <161101d07f6e$8dc54430$a94fcc90$@gmail.com>

Only one additional comment to add to Barry Shein's excellent post...

At the end of your blog Jeremy you (channeling Margaret Thatcher) suggest
that There is no Alternative (to MSism) blah, blah... But as with Maggie the
question is alternative to what? In Maggie's case it was a country stripped
of its protections for the marginalized and poor, giving a one way ticket to
enabling the rich to get richer and allowing for a more or less complete
capitulation of the State as a protector of the public good.

Is there really no alternative to that mystical unicorn--MSism which has the
unfortunate tendency to disappear as soon as anyone tries to get up close...

I think a more appropriate question might be how to we develop more
appropriate, engaging, context sensitive governance processes in our
technology enabled globalized environment.

MSism may be one approach  and certainly does offer some interesting, if
largely theoretical (to date) hints as to direction, but figuring out how to
extend, expand, disperse democratic participation (as for example various
groups around the world have been experimenting with) offer another and one
rather less subject to elite capture and manipulation.

M 

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Barry Shein
Sent: April 24, 2015 5:57 PM
To: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism


On April 24, 2015 at 15:45 jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) wrote:
 >
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/debunking-eight-myths-about-multi-stake
holderism

That's all well and good and a nice easy read.

However it doesn't address what I think are the biggest concerns with
multistakeholderism which are:

o How are stakeholders defined and selected? And by whom? How do we
  ascertain that a stakeholder is legitimate?

o How are they enfranchised? For example, one stakeholder one vote? Or
  some sort of proportional representation? By what metric?

o How does enfranchisement work other than a hand-wave to simple
  majority of whoever happens to be in the room? How does workflow and
  agenda work? Consensus? Majority assent? Committee? etc.

o What is the dispute resolution process? Is there a judiciary aspect?

At some point one has to get beyond simplistic claims that it's good because
it's not bad and instead begin laying out structural details.

-- 
        -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 nashton at consensus.pro  Mon Apr 27 04:51:03 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:51:03 +0200
Subject: [governance] Looking for: ICT/telecom expertise in country in Nepal
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1d17a893a5b7c5dad03e168377ab88e0@consensus.pro>

 

Dear all, 

If you, or someone you know, has hands-on ICTs and especially telecom
infrastructure experience and is presently in Nepal can you let me know
offlist? 

I'm trying to help emergency teams in country gain access to in-country
expertise. 

Regards, Nick 

PS: I know this is off-topic, but given the circumstances, I hope
everyone will forgive it. Criticisms are welcome at /dev/null. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150427/be6504b4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Apr 27 07:24:08 2015
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:24:08 +0900
Subject: [governance] Civil society webinar on the IANA stewardship
 transition & the accountability and governance review
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnksY+Ri_VtwX8me5=FkQiqyQqKEGcwT8C7VSWfmZWiTQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,


please find below information about webinar this Wednesday regarding the
IANA stewardship transition & ICANN accountability processes.

for info  , the draft proposal from naming community was published last
week for comment https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en


Best,


Rafik


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

As the parallel consultations are being launched on the latest proposals
from the working groups on Naming and on Accountability & Governance, we
are delighted to invite you to a webinar dedicated to civil society, on
 April 29th at 1430-1600 UTC.



This will be an opportunity to provide an update and exchange views on the
IANA stewardship transition with some of the key civil society participants
involved in the transition work.



The latest agenda is as follows:

*1, **Introduction - overview of the Internet Governance ecosystem & ICANN
– Adam Peake and Jean-Jacques Sahel, ICANN*

*2, **How civil society participates in ICANN – Bill Drake, Chair of
ICANN’s Non Commercial Users Constituency and Rafik Dammak, Chair of
ICANN’s Non Commercial Stakeholders Group*

*3. **Overview of the IANA stewardship transition process*

*a.     Presentation of the stewardship transition process – Rafik Dammak,
Avri Doria*

*b.     Presentation of the accountability and governance review – Matthew
Shears, CDT and Robin Gross, IP Justice*



Conference calling details:

Adigo bridge 21912; full list of Adigo numbers at www.adigo.com/icann

AdobeConnect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gseemea/.



Please register your interest at: europe at icann.org.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150427/2e5c2d16/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 27 07:42:22 2015
From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:42:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] only 4 days left to vote for the WSIS 2015 prize
Message-ID: <CACKazKr1mb_buRdbgcaPnJxPMYgPc97V8cUTWcfEnq_-==YGZQ@mail.gmail.com>

dear friemds

we have only 4 days left to vote for the WSIS 2015 prize  pls click to see
our projects

http://api.ning.com/files/IxPfzOrgAhdFwKJ7buk20XAh190g**RzvOig1gIZ2FIXDoYHDyMTmpDiIAtAIKDRceK6sPxvx9Wo8M6UngbDqy2XbPO21agV/wsisvotefinal.pdf

http://api.ning.com/files/IxPfzOrgAhdI7gsQD4Z6zn*YA8aVFPysRCGt42MJN1jafbrVqwtCDRLqCtLPHJt1EpMxOFGvTyGNzR43cG0lGfpS7ZWJHRDj/VOTE4WSISPrizeEn..pdf

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150427/7a046d4f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lucabelli at hotmail.it  Mon Apr 27 18:21:22 2015
From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:21:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Request for Comments - Statements on Net Neutrality
Message-ID: <DUB122-W3276ECD2A350F5CFBF3DC1C6E90@phx.gbl>




Dear all, (apologies for crossposting)
 
 This is a Request for Comments with regard to the development of two Policy Statements on Net Neutrality promoted by members of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN) and the Global Coalition on Net Neutrality (GNN), to be discussed within the IGF community at-large.
SUBJECT

The development of the DRAFT Net Neutrality Policy Statements aims at
promoting the endorsement of an agreed position on net neutrality by the IGF
community, based on the Model
Framework on Network Neutrality developed by the DCNN.
 

The development
of these Policy Statements is consistent with the Final
Chair's Summary of the IGF 2014, according to which "The ninth IGF
concluded with looking at the role of the IGF in taking the network neutrality
discussion forward. [...] The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality will
continue the discussions leading up to the 2015 meeting, but the view was also
held that there was a need to develop a process that allowed the entire IGF
community to weigh in and validate the findings of the Dynamic Coalition."


The DCNN Model
Framework (MF) was presented at the 8th IGF in Bali and included
in a Report on "Protecting
Human Rights through Network Neutrality" delivered to the Council of Europe
Steering Committee on Media and Information Society to be used as a working
document for the elaboration of a Draft Recommendation on Net Neutrality. To date, the MF has been conveyed to several Parliamentary assemblies (EU
Parliament, Argentinian Senate and South Korean Parliament) by DCNN members.
However, although it has already played an inspirational role, the model has
never been officially validated by the IGF community at-large, as pointed out by the Chairs Summary. This lack of
validation is primarily due to the lack of an official validation process for
dynamic coalitions' outcomes within the IGF structure. The development of the
Policy Statements aims therefore at filling this gap through a self-organised
and bottom-up process, which is the very essence of the IGF.



DRAFT POLICY STATEMENTS

During the RightsCon joint meeting of the DCNN
and the GNN, consensus emerged as regards the elaboration of one or more DRAFT
Net Neutrality Policy Statement(s) to be presented to the IGF MAG and discussed
- and hopefully endorsed - by the IGF community at-large. 



The initial
DRAFT policy statements are in attachment. The first policy statement (I. On
Network Neutrality) aims at providing a concise and "human readable" version of
the MF, while the second statement (II. On Specialised Services) aims at
expanding the MF definition and provisions on specialised services, adding some
further elements. 

The statements
also include a "restyling" of
the MF (APPENDIX Model Framework v.2.0). The original provisions of the MF have
been reorganised within this restyled version, in order to identify with more
clarity the key issues that should be evoked in the policy statements. The only modification to the MF content concerns the expansion of the specialised service provisions, in order include the additional elements that are proposed in Statement II.




DRAFTERS 

According to DC NN Rules
of Procedure, two drafters have been designated in order to "manage the
elaboration of the position or statement and consolidate received comments with
the aim of achieving a consensus document." 

The two
individuals who volunteered as drafters are:

- Luca Belli,
DCNN Co-Chair and Researcher at the Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de Janeiro 

- Michał
Woźniak, Warsaw Hackerspace and Polish Linux Users Group



CALENDAR

Comments to this initial DRAFT should be sent by 10 May 2015. After this deadline, the drafters will consolidate the comments and
provide an updated draft that will be shared for a second round of comments.

According to
DCNN Rules of procedure, "DCNN members will be provided with 14 calendar days
to comment, followed by a revised draft, and 10 calendar days to comment the
revised draft." To foster the inclusion of widest number of comments from the IGF community at-large, all
individuals will be allowed to comment the Draft statements using this
google doc and this Pad.

 

You are also free to share your inputs and critiques
writing to the DCNN mailing-list nncoalition at mailman.edri.org to which you
can subscribe following
this link. 

 
Thanks in advance for your comments and, please, do not hesitate to share this email.
Best regards, 
Luca


Luca Belli, PhDResearcher, Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de JaneiroFounder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network NeutralityCo-founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility




 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150428/2108767e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT Net Neutrality Policy Statements.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 157624 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150428/2108767e/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From karl at cavebear.com  Mon Apr 27 22:11:35 2015
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:11:35 -0700
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
Message-ID: <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>

On 04/24/2015 04:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/debunking-eight-myths-about-multi-stakeholderism

I take strong exception to that piece's assertion that ICANN's global 
election in year 2000 was a manifest failure.

That election worked despite active attempts by ICANN to manipulate it, 
to discredit it, to technically undermine it, and to emasculate those 
who were elected.

There were several directors who were elected who, in my opinion, were 
at least as good as, and even better than, those who got their board 
seats through ICANN's "nominating" processes before or after year 2000.

Yes, there were difficulties.  But ICANN raced to destroy the system 
rather than to work through the relatively few problems that did occur.

Some mud was thrown at those elections because in some parts of the 
world there were pressures from large companies and governments to 
encourage their employees or citizens to vote in the ICANN elections. 
To my mind that is not a flaw - rather it is good when voters vote - it 
merely raises the issue that is common to many elections: that electors 
have the ability to make real, non-coerced, informed choices, and that 
each voter's vote is secure and secret.

As for the rest of that piece - I pretty much disagree with it in 
totality.  To my mind the atomic unit of governance is the individual 
human being.

"Stakeholderism" denies the worth of an individual person. It drowns 
individual voices beneath the amplified screams of fiat "stakeholders".

And what are these "stakeholders"?  Corporations are simply a legal 
concept that recognizes and permits a group of consenting people to pool 
their assets and do business in concert.  Why should we give a voice in 
governance to what is merely an convenience for the management of money?

And we ought not to forget that those people who own and operate 
corporations - they are people too, and thus by means of their corporate 
property they get a second (and third and fourth) voice - and often a 
louder voice and an elevated place from which to speak - in the halls of 
governance.

And national governments: If we accept the theory that those governments 
honestly and accurately express the values and interests of their 
citizens, then why do we do need any other participants than 
governments?  The answer is obvious: We have learned that governments, 
just like corporations, tend to be driven by small opaque groups and 
express the short-term interests of those groups.

So why are so many of us so enamored by stakeholderism?  Are we so 
captured by political correctness that we must open the door and invite 
the wolves to dine with us - or on us?

The basic unit of governance should always be the individual human 
being.  Of course humans ought to be free to combine, and recombine, 
into fluid combinations to which they may delegate, or revoke, 
permission to speak and advocate on their behalf.  Indeed, we know that 
those who join hands will speak louder than the sum of their individual 
voices.  But we destroy that power when we ossify that fluid system into 
pre-defined tribes on the basis of "stake".

And it really does not matter if the form of internet governance is 
based on a system of elected representatives rather than direct 
elections - as long as the voters have the power from time to time to 
change their minds and replace their representatives.

Stakeholderism replaces fluidity of expression of interest with a rigid 
system in which influence is pre-established and apportioned. 
Stakeholderism is a caste system in which corporations and governments - 
because they can invest in the never-closing eye and participate 
everywhere - will inevitably rise high and individual people will sink low.

		--karl--



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

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Tue Apr 28 15:06:17 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:06:17 -0300
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance in Latin America research
 project
In-Reply-To: <CAH5-+Wh+JEqhrzxaHVxw4=99+LAWqr4mk_M4emdSsa7gbyjUYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5-+Wh+JEqhrzxaHVxw4=99+LAWqr4mk_M4emdSsa7gbyjUYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <553FDA29.2050203@gmail.com>


Dear friends,

first, we have to understand, why we need "Internet Governance".

The fundamental definition is the virtual addressing princip. Based on 
this predefinition you create a request for centralism. And it is clear 
and honest, when we say, that at this moment the users of the Internet 
have nothing more to determine.

It is not a technical decision, that we have the virtual addressing 
methods. In the beginning of the Internet it was absolutly clear, that 
this system have to be private. Not like the streets between the local 
communities. And the access to this transport system have to stay under 
controll of private companies. And with and over this private companies 
the states can act.

In the answer of Sergio we find some links and tips to his environment. 
He, and all this people in this environment, have no interest for a free 
Internet with a free access to this transport system. He have his 
interest for a job in this institutions. And many people in this IG 
lists have the same basic interest.

Nnenna Nwakanma spoke clear about his principles and intentions. But not 
about, how we can realize it. Michael Gurstein, i am shure, have the 
same principles. But never he speak about the technical basics. Also 
Jean-François C. (Jefsey) Morfin have the same intention, motivation and 
principles like Nnenna. But he have more problems to understand the 
principles of the technical architecture.

If we create a technical architecture with the needs for centralized 
Governance, than we lost. Always. And we have to be clear, that this 
definition is not a technical request. The technical definitions always 
come from our Philosophy. From our systems of thought and values.

The universities and research centers of the states are oriented today 
on the money flow. And not on the development of technolgy for a easier 
life for the people. And also the most people in this environment are 
oriented to a high income. The consequence is the domination of military 
interests and private technical monopolisation. Because from this we 
have the biggest flow of money.

The only way to break through this blockades is the free technology. 
Free for all people to use. Free to develop in a global cooperation. 
Based on the principles: "global thinking, local doing" and "knowledge 
is always world heritage". On this way we come to: "the free association 
of free members".

If we want to create the real Internet, the interconnections of local 
networks, based on the autonomous local networks, based on the global IP 
address from the geografical position of the local networks, then we 
have to create our own free technology for this technical components. 
And the local capacity for building of this components in the 
local/regional environment.

The InterNet is only a transport system for digital data in packet form. 
No more. The communication is an act of the people self. This stupid 
propaganda to the internet we have to stop.

"A constant dripping wears the stone." I have to repeat this principles. 
Like you with your arguments for "Internet Governance". It is the same. 
Based on our different intentions, motivations and perspectives.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin America 
research project
Datum: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:24:17 -0300
Von: Sergio Salinas Porto <presidencia at internauta.org.ar>
An: Renata Aquino <raquino at gmail.com>
Kopie (CC): Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>, bestbits 
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

Dear Renata and All:

I am surprised by the asseveration of Willi!

I am a member of an organization in Argentina -Internauta
Argentina-(Internauta, .org.ar) with high participation in public policy
intervention in the domestic and international sphere-we are part of the
foundation of LACRALO in ICANN, represent users Internet of Argentina in
that realm and personally I have had the privilege of carrying the voice
ALAC Member Ratings region in this area.

We spent some time ago by an electoral process in our organziación with
over 80,000 people participating with their vote on them.

We are part of FLUI (American Federation of internet users -
http://fuilatin.org), which I chair, made up of 12 organizations
representing Internet users in different countries of the region.

I hope this serves to learn more uin pco as users are organized in Latin
America.

Kind regards!

*Sergio Salinas Porto
Presidente Internauta Argentina
Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet
<http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://ctamdq.org.ar>
FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet
<http://www.fuilatin.org>
facebook:salinasporto <http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> &
sergiosalinasII <http://www.facebook.com/sergiosalinasII>
twitter:sergiosalinas <http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas>
Google+: Sergio Salinas Porto
<https://plus.google.com/104639152443153592254/posts>
Hangout:presidencia at internauta.org.ar
<Hangout%3Apresidencia at internauta.org.ar> /
Pixelhub: salinasporto <http://pixelhub.me/salinasporto>
Youtube: salinasporto <http://www.youtube.com/salinasporto>
Skype:internautaargentina
Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819*


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: Internet Governance in Latin America research project
Datum: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:58:33 -0300
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
An: Renata Aquino <raquino at gmail.com>
Kopie (CC): governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, 
1net.org discuss <discuss at 1net.org>

Dear Renata,

it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me, 
that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance" 
and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people 
on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.

Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then
ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the
external definitions.

In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with
connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i
found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name
Internet.

In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
Brazil.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research project
Datum: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:18:28 -0300
Von: Renata Aquino <raquino at gmail.com>
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

Hello

I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin 
America currently building a list of organizations in this area. The 
goal of this Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in 
these discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the 
way to main issues in the region.

I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
organizations or professionals I may have missed.

The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
raquino at gmail.com

The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in 
the area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d 
like to participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me 
an email.

This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in 
intenet governance events in Latin America.

Thanks for any help
Renata Aquino Ribeiro

Professor and researcher
IT Campus – Quixadá City
Federal University of Ceará – Brazil

-----

Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America

(Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)

* CITEL
URL: http://www.citel.oas.org

* eLAC
http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp

* LACIGF
http://www.lacigf.org

* LACNIC
http://www.lacnic.net

* LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
http://www.lactld.org

* LatinoamerICANN
http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>

* LACRALO
http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo

* LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/

* Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica, 
Trinidad e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia, 
Paraguai, Uruguai, Argentina
http://www.internetsociety.org



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

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Tue Apr 28 17:15:42 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:15:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org> <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>

On 27/04/2015 7:11 pm, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> And national governments: If we accept the theory that those
> governments honestly and accurately express the values and interests
> of their citizens, then why do we do need any other participants than
> governments?  The answer is obvious: We have learned that governments,
> just like corporations, tend to be driven by small opaque groups and
> express the short-term interests of those groups.

Few other multi-stakeholder skeptics will buy this, because
representative democracy is the one thing that they most want to
preserve in future Internet governance arrangements.  Your ideals of
direct democracy holding back corporations and governments are seen as
even more utopian than multi-stakeholder ideals.  But IMHO
multi-stakeholderism and direct democracy are not that far apart
conceptually; the main difference is that the latter is more difficult
to realise in practice and is more vulnerable to majoritarian tyranny.

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150428/c1905ba0/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From karl at cavebear.com  Tue Apr 28 17:51:06 2015
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:51:06 -0700
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org> <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com> <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
Message-ID: <554000CA.6010300@cavebear.com>

On 04/28/2015 02:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 27/04/2015 7:11 pm, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> And national governments: If we accept the theory that those
>> governments honestly and accurately express the values and interests
>> of their citizens, then why do we do need any other participants than
>> governments?  The answer is obvious: We have learned that governments,
>> just like corporations, tend to be driven by small opaque groups and
>> express the short-term interests of those groups.
>
> Few other multi-stakeholder skeptics will buy this, because
> representative democracy is the one thing that they most want to
> preserve in future Internet governance arrangements.  Your ideals of
> direct democracy holding back corporations and governments are seen as
> even more utopian than multi-stakeholder ideals.  But IMHO
> multi-stakeholderism and direct democracy are not that far apart
> conceptually; the main difference is that the latter is more difficult
> to realise in practice and is more vulnerable to majoritarian tyranny.

Perhaps I didn't write my prior note well enough - I am not advocating a 
direct voting system.  Rather I am advocating a system in which each 
human has an equal opportunity to make his/her voice heard - and this 
concern is the same whether the system is direct or representative.

And my additional point is that human voices, and only human voices, 
should have any power to vote and decide matters.  Combinations, such as 
corporations and governments ought, of course, be allowed to proffer 
advice, but not to cast votes. Their power ought to be constrained to 
merely offer advice and try to convince those who do have the power of 
choice, humans.

I am a hard nosed person who knows that we can't have direct votes on 
every issue; I know that we need some sort of elected representative 
system with clear means of periodic re-chosing of representatives and 
perhaps even recall.

Rather I am talking about a choice between a system that is controlled 
by people or a system that is as if custom designed to be captured by 
corporate interests and governmental bureaucrats,

Stakeholderism - with or without the "multi" prefix - is the utopian 
dream that will inexorably become a distopian nightmare.

Let corporations and governments give their views and advice, but 
withhold from them the franchise to participate in any process in which 
decisions are made.  Only humans (or their chosen representatives) ought 
to be making the choices.

If a "stakeholder" feels it needs to express its view then let it speak, 
let it attempt to convince, but only to attempt to convince, nothing more.

	--karl--





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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Apr 29 04:09:10 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:09:10 +0200
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
Message-ID: <20150429100910.3a25756c@quill>

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:15:42 -0700
Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On 27/04/2015 7:11 pm, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > And national governments: If we accept the theory that those
> > governments honestly and accurately express the values and interests
> > of their citizens, then why do we do need any other participants
> > than governments?  The answer is obvious: We have learned that
> > governments, just like corporations, tend to be driven by small
> > opaque groups and express the short-term interests of those groups.
> 
> Few other multi-stakeholder skeptics will buy this, because
> representative democracy is the one thing that they most want to
> preserve in future Internet governance arrangements.  Your ideals of
> direct democracy holding back corporations and governments are seen as
> even more utopian than multi-stakeholder ideals.  But IMHO
> multi-stakeholderism and direct democracy are not that far apart
> conceptually; the main difference is that the latter is more difficult
> to realise in practice and is more vulnerable to majoritarian tyranny.

Who are those multi-stakeholder skeptics in regard to whom you claim
that "representative democracy is the one thing that they most want to
preserve in future Internet governance arrangements"?

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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Wed Apr 29 05:15:35 2015
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:15:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org> <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com> <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
Message-ID: <1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>

Hi Jeremy,

I think Barry did a very good job at addressing the major flaws (and toxicity) of MS-blahism, debating your piece. Thanks to all for this.

One question to you though about your last sentence:
"But IMHO multi-stakeholderism and direct democracy are not that far apart
conceptually; the main difference is that the latter is more difficult
to realise in practice and is more vulnerable to majoritarian tyranny"

>From a democratic stand point, the majority is an essential principle. So how can you envision such a majority being a tyranny?
What are you exactly referring to? Are you saying that MSism, having the tyranny of a minority is still better than having to deal with a more difficult to handle tyranny of the majority. In any case, this takes us far away from the fundamental acceptance of democracy (and its majority principle).

No need to say that IMHO multi-stakeholderism and democracy (as direct, participative or distributive can it be) are in total opposition and distance when it comes to public policy decision making. As a methodology for consultancy, I have little to oppose to the idea of gathering in the same room different stakeholders. I don't think of anyone being against this idea. But again, we have to put things in the right context of 'use'. And be clear about the principles. This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.

Thanks
JC


Le 28 avr. 2015 à 23:15, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :

> On 27/04/2015 7:11 pm, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> And national governments: If we accept the theory that those
>> governments honestly and accurately express the values and interests
>> of their citizens, then why do we do need any other participants than
>> governments?  The answer is obvious: We have learned that governments,
>> just like corporations, tend to be driven by small opaque groups and
>> express the short-term interests of those groups.
> 
> Few other multi-stakeholder skeptics will buy this, because
> representative democracy is the one thing that they most want to
> preserve in future Internet governance arrangements.  Your ideals of
> direct democracy holding back corporations and governments are seen as
> even more utopian than multi-stakeholder ideals.  But IMHO
> multi-stakeholderism and direct democracy are not that far apart
> conceptually; the main difference is that the latter is more difficult
> to realise in practice and is more vulnerable to majoritarian tyranny.
> 
> -- 
> 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 ::
> 
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
> 
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150429/2fb4daa7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Apr 29 05:36:42 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:36:42 +0200
Subject: [governance] tyranny of majority (was Re: Debunking eight myths
 about multi-stakeholderism)
In-Reply-To: <1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
	<1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150429113642.19853b2c@quill>

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:15:35 +0200
Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:

> This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.

In governance systems which have majority voting but not the other
essential elements of the modern understanding of democracy, it will
sometimes happen that tyrannical, i.e. human rights violating, decision
proposals are supported by a majority of votes, and therefore
considered adopted. A famous example was the state-sanctioned murder of
Socrates in ancient Athens.

In democratic governance systems of course in such a situation there is
the possibility to get the outcome of the vote overturned by a court
decision on the basis that it is a human rights violation.

In democratic governance systems therefore tyranny of majority does not
occur.

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Apr 29 09:05:26 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:05:26 +0200
Subject: [governance] tyranny of majority (was Re: Debunking eight
  myths about multi-stakeholderism)
In-Reply-To: <20150429113642.19853b2c@quill>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
 <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
 <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
 <1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
 <20150429113642.19853b2c@quill>
Message-ID: <E1YnRea-00085E-KN@igcaucus.org>

Gentlemen,

it seems that all this are dreams in the air.
xxxxcracies are about government of several people. Here we consider 
the mutual governance of machines. I personnally do not give a damn 
about what you may think, vote, decide, etc. as long as my machine 
can use the catenet (i.e. the shared digital local resources that 
make the global network) the way I wish.

The only thing that can happen to me is that you gather together in a 
"global community" (cf. RFC 6852) making your machines not to respect 
the RFCs and trying bloking mine. OK. That is your problem if I 
technically circumvent you - soemthing I and you have no doubt the 
Libre community can easily do.

Next, you can decide to lobby the lawmaking process and send me cops 
to prevent me from using my machine along the RFCs. This is exactly 
what some of you are doing, who bet that the best cops for the job 
are the american ones.

Here the response is (for those who care about the US weapons of mass 
destruction) :
- either to technically outsmart the american lawmakers (again as per 
RFC 6852, through non RFC standardization people will use) and 
disregard its cops, TPP, TAFTA, etc.
- or to make the odds so uncertain for the US that the US executive 
branch delays its transition to ICANN/DAVOS.

I am afraid everything else is either international blahblahblah or 
local US election preparation.
Thank you to tell me where I am wrong ?

jfc

At 11:36 29/04/2015, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:15:35 +0200
>Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.
>
>In governance systems which have majority voting but not the other
>essential elements of the modern understanding of democracy, it will
>sometimes happen that tyrannical, i.e. human rights violating, decision
>proposals are supported by a majority of votes, and therefore
>considered adopted. A famous example was the state-sanctioned murder of
>Socrates in ancient Athens.
>
>In democratic governance systems of course in such a situation there is
>the possibility to get the outcome of the vote overturned by a court
>decision on the basis that it is a human rights violation.
>
>In democratic governance systems therefore tyranny of majority does not
>occur.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your 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 tarakiyee at apc.org  Wed Apr 29 09:38:49 2015
From: tarakiyee at apc.org (Tarakiyee)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:38:49 +0300
Subject: [governance] tyranny of majority (was Re: Debunking eight myths
 about multi-stakeholderism)
In-Reply-To: <20150429113642.19853b2c@quill>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>	<1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com> <20150429113642.19853b2c@quill>
Message-ID: <5540DEE9.5030201@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I would agree that majority rule is no more essential to democracy
than any other elements of democracy. Majority rule without democracy
is simply mob rule.

I think any democratic governance system that's coercive can succumb
to mob rule or even to a well organised and well resourced minority.
Limits on majority rule often fail in practice due to impunity and
collective inaction.

Specifically in the context of MS, it's important to recognise that
multi-stakeholder processes are not all equal, an MS process with a
democratic outlook would encourage deliberation, transparency and
inclusion, all essential elements to mitigate tyranny, either by a
minority or a majority.

Best,
Tarakiyee

On 29/04/15 12:36, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:15:35 +0200 Jean-Christophe Nothias
> <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.
> 
> In governance systems which have majority voting but not the other 
> essential elements of the modern understanding of democracy, it
> will sometimes happen that tyrannical, i.e. human rights violating,
> decision proposals are supported by a majority of votes, and
> therefore considered adopted. A famous example was the
> state-sanctioned murder of Socrates in ancient Athens.
> 
> In democratic governance systems of course in such a situation
> there is the possibility to get the outcome of the vote overturned
> by a court decision on the basis that it is a human rights
> violation.
> 
> In democratic governance systems therefore tyranny of majority does
> not occur.
> 
> Greetings, Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: 
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see: 
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVQN7nAAoJEDehRReL/nRD4hsH/3dVrJn0votEpm9klSWZUpjP
ti8m5s+6mA7KlA+foDLv7rpFQJhq1l7wMxfUyP7WvbfQNeIqa6EvPSgHG+Ar+VOl
C7dXe1jwP0Iw7P57zfLeQx+XeWhpiHdAF3tIvgTlbFB3f9K3CvnZ2hykSr8bsJzq
lx56ypMk2SfPT02lz5RGJUatn8oyskCz6I+f4YqtjlbX71cRlVxAloU/KzeKcWgi
MiPPrYuRmYw+PRYZDmVK4fieNYYOsBtM6YRsGPE0xGgKARV6msfSilKboEsPWaP6
JtUuyWCUmVDvcjD0uMIrtAo3LOIij+czaIUK3g+I0f39HijIOwizmA5d/fbWSTw=
=sPIi
-----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 bzs at world.std.com  Wed Apr 29 13:23:13 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:23:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
Message-ID: <21825.4993.483415.349770@world.std.com>


Ok, let's try this then:

Is EFF a stakeholder?

I don't mean in some hand-wavey feel-good "EVERYBODY is a
STAKEHOLDER!" way.

I mean are they enfranchisable?

Say the ICANN proposal for the IANA transition is in its final form
and looking for a formal vote of confidence.

A yes vote would make it happen, a no vote would likely send it back
for several months of re-write. This is not just a feel-good poll.

The stakeholders are assembled and ready to be counted.

Is EFF one of them?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*

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

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

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

From bzs at world.std.com  Wed Apr 29 14:03:33 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:03:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
	<1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21825.7414.6268.54541@world.std.com>


FWIW, the usual characterization of Tyranny of the Majority is 51%
voting to kill the other 49%.

The mitigation is clear boundaries on what can and cannot be voted on
generally referred to as "rights", you cannot violate the following
list of rights with a vote...(list, plus evolved case law).

There's generally some way to modify the list usually involving voting
but one hopes it requires an inherently difficult process, not a
simple up/down vote. A term is "hysteresis" -- once rights have been
laid down then by design it should be difficult to remove or limit
them.

This is government 101 perhaps but it's also not been addressed in any
multistakeholder systems I've seen except perhaps through by-laws of a
corporation which is significant!

But to my mind one can't get to what can be voted on without first
having some idea of who can vote. These limitations have to be laid
out and approved.

Or by whatever the process for approving decisions is, voting is to
some extent a metaphor for any reasonably inclusive and transparent
approval process. Humming comes to mind:

     https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

-- 
        -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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Wed Apr 29 14:51:00 2015
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:51:00 +0200
Subject: [governance] tyranny of majority (was Re: Debunking eight myths
 about multi-stakeholderism)
In-Reply-To: <E1YnReW-000830-Pv@igcaucus.org>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org> <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com> <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org> <1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com> <20150429113642.19853b2c@quill> <E1YnReW-000830-Pv@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <60687DFD-B80D-4DAE-9791-5827834FFF10@theglobaljournal.net>

Dear Jefsey,

Thanks for your thoughtful and provocative (positive understatement) comment:

As you ask a tough question (who feels in the mood to tell you that you are wrong), I still see two issues in your rebuttal of this debate. 

Whatever you do with your computer, you are still part a world that is trying to avoid wars by peaceful means (national laws, international laws and treaties). Nuclear weapons might be part of that peace process but I leave this to the specialists.

More to my first point: your assumption is "...as long as my machine can use the catenet the way I wish". Well this is something that quite does not the fit the ordinary citizen. Moreover it suggests a world of individualities that could one way or another live by themselves, as far they do not interact with others. OK I do play around a bit, but still your starting line seems a bit individualistic when thinking of collective and public interest. And therefore the reasoning might fall short of the real issue which is not only about one accessing and using the catenet as he wishes. The challenges we face go beyond that point.

If the compass is "freedom to connect to the catenet", then maybe it is better to be a pro US as they do love to give us Freedom here, Freedom there. They love it so much because it resonates with Free-market, with as very limited regulation (competition, distortion, abuse...) So if this is all about freedom, and if we do not find any reason to care about others, then we do not need any such e-listing.

Second point: what Barry says makes a lot of sense when coming to legitimacy, or enfranchised stake-holders. This sense of chaos among the "stake-holders", these who-ever that Jankélévitch would make fun of, is a way to negate the collective burden. It flattens everything and everyone in its due rights. Take the MS definition as per Larry Strickling (thanks to Carolina for fowarding this to the list). It might not endanger you wether you play in the system, or outside the system. But it might be an issue for many others without all of your abilities.

Strickling: "What do we mean by the multistakeholder model?  One expert defines the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.[1]” 

Whatever RFC we talk about, we have an issue here. 

Where I tend to follow you is about the fact that the solution will ultimately come from techies, to bypass all this domination, when the degree of dominance will be recognized as a toxic wonder killing societal fabric, democratic debate, encouraging all abuses... Open roots and other ideas are interesting and challenging to the current tech-order. Das Order! On that I believe your first option is the right one, the second one being just a big pantomine.

I still believe that politics (and our old fashion democratic principles) need to fully step in this MS mess.

It might sounds like two principles or concept opposing each other, when they are not. Think of integration and decentralization. They can accommodate and uphold each other. Surely we will go through more blahblah.- before anything can happen, or before a group large enough will become the obvious alternative to this stupidity. 

Debating is part of any democratic process.

Trying to build on what you, Barry and others are saying.

JC


Le 29 avr. 2015 à 15:05, Jefsey a écrit :

> Gentlemen,
> 
> it seems that all this are dreams in the air.
> xxxxcracies are about government of several people. Here we consider the mutual governance of machines. I personnally do not give a damn about what you may think, vote, decide, etc. as long as my machine can use the catenet (i.e. the shared digital local resources that make the global network) the way I wish.
> 
> The only thing that can happen to me is that you gather together in a "global community" (cf. RFC 6852) making your machines not to respect the RFCs and trying bloking mine. OK. That is your problem if I technically circumvent you - soemthing I and you have no doubt the Libre community can easily do.
> 
> Next, you can decide to lobby the lawmaking process and send me cops to prevent me from using my machine along the RFCs. This is exactly what some of you are doing, who bet that the best cops for the job are the american ones.
> 
> Here the response is (for those who care about the US weapons of mass destruction) :
> - either to technically outsmart the american lawmakers (again as per RFC 6852, through non RFC standardization people will use) and disregard its cops, TPP, TAFTA, etc.
> - or to make the odds so uncertain for the US that the US executive branch delays its transition to ICANN/DAVOS.
> 
> I am afraid everything else is either international blahblahblah or local US election preparation.
> Thank you to tell me where I am wrong ?
> 
> jfc
> 
> At 11:36 29/04/2015, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:15:35 +0200
>> Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.
>> 
>> In governance systems which have majority voting but not the other
>> essential elements of the modern understanding of democracy, it will
>> sometimes happen that tyrannical, i.e. human rights violating, decision
>> proposals are supported by a majority of votes, and therefore
>> considered adopted. A famous example was the state-sanctioned murder of
>> Socrates in ancient Athens.
>> 
>> In democratic governance systems of course in such a situation there is
>> the possibility to get the outcome of the vote overturned by a court
>> decision on the basis that it is a human rights violation.
>> 
>> In democratic governance systems therefore tyranny of majority does not
>> occur.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> Content-Disposition: inline
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150429/112bb935/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 29 16:28:39 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:28:39 -0700
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <20150429100910.3a25756c@quill>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org> <20150429100910.3a25756c@quill>
Message-ID: <07ff01d082bb$14553c90$3cffb5b0$@gmail.com>

Jeremy, 

You really must stop making things up that suit your argument but that have
no basis in reality.  

As one of those whom you refer to in your MS "Jeremiad" I would like you to
point to a passage in any of my writing on MSism where the following is
either stated directly or even inferred--"representative democracy is the
one thing that they most want to preserve in future Internet governance
arrangements...

My own, oft stated position is that there is a crisis in democratic
processes and we need to find alternative and very likely technology enabled
ways of proceeding for effective and efficient democratic governance.
However, we would be extremely  ill-advised to take this crisis as
justification for substituting governance by the elite few as through MSism
for governance by the many as through democracy.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
Sent: April 29, 2015 1:09 AM
To: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:15:42 -0700
Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On 27/04/2015 7:11 pm, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > And national governments: If we accept the theory that those 
> > governments honestly and accurately express the values and interests 
> > of their citizens, then why do we do need any other participants 
> > than governments?  The answer is obvious: We have learned that 
> > governments, just like corporations, tend to be driven by small 
> > opaque groups and express the short-term interests of those groups.
> 
> Few other multi-stakeholder skeptics will buy this, because 
> representative democracy is the one thing that they most want to 
> preserve in future Internet governance arrangements.  Your ideals of 
> direct democracy holding back corporations and governments are seen as 
> even more utopian than multi-stakeholder ideals.  But IMHO 
> multi-stakeholderism and direct democracy are not that far apart 
> conceptually; the main difference is that the latter is more difficult 
> to realise in practice and is more vulnerable to majoritarian tyranny.

Who are those multi-stakeholder skeptics in regard to whom you claim that
"representative democracy is the one thing that they most want to preserve
in future Internet governance arrangements"?

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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Thu Apr 30 05:59:08 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:59:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] [CFP] 2015 11th International Conference on
 Innovations in Information Technology (IIT'15)
Message-ID: <00bd01d0832c$4ca1b490$e5e51db0$@unimi.it>

Dear Colleagues,

 

Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP.

 

Please feel free to distribute the IIT'15 CFP to your colleagues, students
and networks.

 

****************************************************************************
**************

2015 11th International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology
(IIT'15)

Special Theme: Smart Living Cities, Big Data and Sustainable Development 

November 01-03, 2015, Dubai, UAE

http://www.it-innovations.ae/ 

****************************************************************************
**************

 

** BEST PAPER AWARDS

 

Two best papers of the conference will be selected by the program committee.
One will be awarded the "Best Research Paper Award" and another one will be
awarded the "Best Application Paper Award" (for application-oriented
submissions). 

 

** IMPORTANT DATES

 

- Papers and Student Posters Submission           30 May 2015

- Submission of Tutorials                                             30 May
2015

- Notification for Papers and Student Posters   15 July 2015

- Notification for Tutorials                                          15
July 2015

- Final Camera-Ready                                                   01
September 2015

 

** PUBLICATION

 

IIT'15 is technically sponsored by IEEE Computer Society. Proceedings will
be published by IEEE Computer Society Conference Publication Services, and
will be submitted for publication in Computer Society Digital Library
indexed in IEEE Xplore digital library, and all other global indices.
Extended papers will be published in a Springer Book, indexed in Springer
global indices, one of the largest databases in the world and Scopus
including citations.

 

Selected papers from IIT'15 will be invited for possible publications in
special issues of journals. 

 

** SCOPE

 

The International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology 2015
(IIT'15) is a forum that addresses the latest ideas in information
technology (IT). The theme of IIT'15 is Smart Cities and all of the software
and hardware technologies that are required to provide better living
conditions in the cities of tomorrow. This theme will be reflected by a
number of tracks which focus on different aspects of related technologies
such as Big Data, cloud computing, collaborative platforms, communication
infrastructures, smart health, smart learning, social participation,
sustainable development and energy management. All of those themes will be
brought together by unifying invited high quality keynotes and panels.  

 

** CONFERENCE TRACKS/THEMES

 

Topics of interest include but not limited to the following major
tracks/themes. Research papers are invited but not limited to the following
areas:

 

Track A: Innovations in Information and Communication Infrastructures

- Advanced Network Technologies, Heterogeneous networks, and Real Time
Networks

- Quality of Services

- Next Generation of Mobile Networks

- Ad-Hoc and Sensor Networks, Wireless Networks

- Distributed Systems, Grid Computing

- Smart Grid

- Mobility Management and Mobile computing

- Information and Cyber Security for Smart Living Spaces

 

Track B: Internet of Things (IoT)

- ICT Architecture for IoT

- System design, Modeling and Simulation

- Grid Computing , and Cloud Computing

- Real-Time Systems for IoT, Autonomic Systems

- Security, Privacy, Trust and Reliability

- Software Design and Development of IoT-Based Applications

- Intelligent Data Processing

- Smart Appliances & Wearable Computing Devices

 

Track C: Smart Collaborative Platforms and Logistics

- Agile Information Systems

- Design, Modeling and Simulation of Collaborative Applications

- Practice and Experiences of Collaborative Applications

- Risk Management, Smart Business

- Middleware Support for Collaboration

- Real-Time Information Sharing and Interaction

- AI and Decision-Support Systems

 

Track D: Big Data and Smart Applications

- Big Data Analytics and Algorithms

- High Performance Computing and Real-Time of Big Data Processing

- Big Data Storage and Distribution

- Data Mining

- Grid Computing and Cloud Computing

- Middleware for Smart Applications

- e-Health, Smart Learning, Intelligent Processing and Intelligent
Applications

 

Track E: Cyber-Physical Energy Systems

- Theory, Tools and Applications

- System Design, Modeling and Simulation

- Testbeds and Experiences

- Algorithms for Energy Efficiency

- Middleware

- Design and Development of Protocols for Sustainable energy

- Design and Development of Secure and Resilient Systems

 

** SUBMISSIONS

 

IIT'15 seeks original manuscripts (of up to 6 pages maximum in IEEE
two-column format) describing research in all aspects of IT that contribute
to the conference themes. Papers submitted to the conference should present
original work that has not been previously published or is currently under
review by other conferences or journals.  All papers will be peer reviewed,
and authors of accepted papers are expected to present their work at the
conference. Submissions of tutorial, special session, and workshop proposals
are also welcome. The submission guidelines are available at

http://www.it-innovations.ae/iit2015/Authors.html. 

Paper submission should be done through http://www.edas.info  

 

** KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

 

Chair Professor Christian Wagner

Associate Provost for Quality Assurance

City University, Hong kong

 

Dr. Babu Narayanan

Senior Principal Scientist GE Global Research

 

Dr. Michael P. Perrone

Program Director, DCS Client Partnerships IBM T. J. Watson Research Center,
NY USA

 

Professor & Canberra Fellow & IEEE Fellow Elizabeth Chang

IFIP Web Semantics Group chair, University of New South Wales
UNSW at Australian Defense Force Academy, Australia 

 

We look forward to welcoming you in Dubai at IIT'15 in November 2015.

 

On behalf of the IIT'15 Organizing Committee

 

 


****************
Per destinare il 5x1000 all'Universita' degli Studi di Milano: indicare nella dichiarazione dei redditi il codice fiscale 80012650158.

http://www.unimi.it/13084.htm?utm_source=firmaMail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=linkFirmaEmail&utm_campaign=5xmille

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150430/6d251d90/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Elvana.THACI at coe.int  Thu Apr 30 08:35:45 2015
From: Elvana.THACI at coe.int (THACI Elvana)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:35:45 +0000
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Council_of_Europe=E2=80=99s_High_Level_Con?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ference=2C_=E2=80=9CFreedom_of_Expression_is_still_the_Issue?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9D_13-14_October_2015/_Conf=C3=A9rence_du_Conseil_de_l?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=27Europe_de_haut_niveau=2C_=22La_libert=C3=A9_d=27expression_e?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?st_toujours_la_question=22?=
Message-ID: <2BC8C1F8EE620E4DBF566BCF5F804CE3A12E1974@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int>

Dear all,

We are pleased to invite you to attend the High‐level Conference organised by the Council of Europe, “Freedom of Expression is Still the Issue” to be held on 13 and 14 October 2015 in the Hemicycle, Palais de l’Europe, in Strasbourg.

During the Conference three key topics will be discussed; freedom of expression as a fundamental value of democracy; challenges to freedom of expression posed by the Internet and possible answers; the role of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the European legal landscape.

Please find attached, for your information, the draft programme, which is also available on our website (http://www.coe.int/media). The working languages will be English and French for all sessions. Participants can register using the online registration system which will be made available from July to October 2015.

Should you wish to obtain any further information concerning the Conference, please contact Ms Onur Andreotti, (tel: +33 3 88 41 42 12; e-mail: Onur.ANDREOTTI at coe.int<mailto:Onur.ANDREOTTI at coe.int>), Coordinator of the Council of Europe Task Force on Freedom of Expression.

Best regards,

>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<

Chers tous

Nous avons le plaisir de vous inviter à participer à la Conférence de haut niveau « liberté d'expression est toujours la question » organisée par le Conseil l'Europe qui se tiendra les 13 et 14 octobre 2015 dans l’Hémicycle du Palais de l'Europe, à Strasbourg.

La Conférence abordera les trois éléments clés suivants: la liberté d'expression comme valeur fondamentale de la démocratie; les défis de la liberté d'expression posés par l'Internet et les réponses possible ; le rôle de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme et de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme dans le paysage juridique européen.

Je vous prie de trouver ci-joint pour information, le projet de programme qui est également disponible sur notre site (http://www.coe.int/media). Les langues de travail seront le français et l'anglais pour toutes les sessions. Les participants pourront s’inscrire en utilisant le formulaire d’enregistrement en ligne, disponible de juillet à octobre 2015.

Nous espérons que vous serez en mesure de participer à cet événement.

Pour de plus amples renseignements concernant la Conférence, n’hésitez pas à contacter  Mme Onur Andreotti, (tél: +33 3 88 41 42 12 ; e-mail: Onur.ANDREOTTI at coe.int<mailto:Onur.ANDREOTTI at coe.int>), coordinatrice du Groupe de travail du Conseil l'Europe pour la liberté d'expression.

Cordialement,

Elvana Thaçi
Council of Europe, Media & Internet
+ 33 (0) 3 90 21 56 98
+ 33 (0) 6 20 74 64 48
elvana.thaci at coe.int<mailto:elvana.thaci at coe.int>
[cid:image001.png at 01D03F0E.4AD6FD80]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Information-Society-Group/771851256242082?fref=ts>[cid:image002.png at 01D00B04.68105560]<https://twitter.com/elvanathaci>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150430/4a0133e1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1447 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150430/4a0133e1/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 895 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150430/4a0133e1/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Conférence Octobre projet de programme 22 Avril.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38225 bytes
Desc: Conférence Octobre projet de programme 22 Avril.docx
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150430/4a0133e1/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Final English version - Conference programme.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 40505 bytes
Desc: Final English version - Conference programme.docx
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150430/4a0133e1/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 30 10:37:05 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:07:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling
 Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Internet2 Global
 Summit
In-Reply-To: <081d01d082bd$ed9ec6e0$c8dc54a0$@gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcQNsA3QHAhVMsuFmjRdG6wR2FNkOeeyjHxHF9smPqKOA@mail.gmail.com> <081d01d082bd$ed9ec6e0$c8dc54a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55423E11.50609@itforchange.net>

A lot of stuff about 'multistakeholder model of IG' is based on a
deliberate obfuscation about whether one is talking about a subsidiary
set of governance functions that relate to technical management of the
Internet  or about making policy about the Internet. It is this
obfuscation that  for instance allows the US to run with the hares at
the same time as it hunts with the hounds. This obfuscation is quite
evident in this statement by Strickling as well.

The early part of the statement says

"New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are
related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information
across borders.  As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate
a key question that has dominated international discussions over the
last decade or so, specifically who should govern the Internet?  Who
should make the decisions that determine what the Internet of tomorrow
will look like?"

Evidently, since some highest level public policy issues are mentioned
here, and so one would take that is the level of IG that the statement
is addressing.

The statement goes on to recommend to "make these decisions through what
is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance".

Participation and consensus decision making are given as the two key
elements of the multistakeholder (MS) model of IG. Right! Now, if this
is about actual public policy matters, one does note that the recent net
neutrality decision was not made by consensus even within the FCC, to
say nothing about the views of the telco sector and the Republicans.  
One would therefore really like to know what US means by 'making all IG
decisions by consensus'. But of course they are not going to tell us,
since it is all a spiel for the gullible and nothing more!

After making grand announcements about their support for the MS model
overall in the IG area, the moment they have to talk about details one
notices that it is all about technical management - they speak of IETF,
ICANN and so on. Why do they not then clearly tell us that MS model is
for the technical management area, while public policy issues like net
neutrality this will be done in the traditional democratic ways, as was
done for the recent net neutrality decision in the US. This is what we
really see them doing.

One sentence in the speech especially is a major give away. 

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
adopted a set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that
strongly endorse multistakeholder cooperation.  The OECD principles
state, “multistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the
flexibility and global scalability required to address Internet policy
challenges."

Let them describe how OECD adopted its Internet policy making
principles, which they claim strongly endorsed MS cooperation. Is the
method employed by the OECD for policy development what they would call
a MS model of policy development? If so, lets all adopt it. I am fine
with it. But that is no way any kind of an equal footing model - govs
make the draft, they take inputs from other stakeholders, sometimes they
informally share the final draft with other stakeholders to seek wide
acceptance, but whether there is acceptance by all or not, it is the
governments which decide and sign on the final policy document. Would
this be described as the MS model of policy devleopment? If indeed so, I
dont see where is any dis agreement among any groups here at all.

And if this is not a MS model of policy development, those here who
profess MS models of policy development should speak up and so say, and
also tell us what would they think would be right MS model of policy
development. There is no point in writing vague theoretical things about
MSism .... One needs to come out and tell whether a specific case is MS
or not, and if not, what would be the corresponding MS model. That would
be some intellectual and political honesty.

It is clear that the US government believes in developing public
policies (including Internet related) in the traditional democratic/
governmental way, both at the national level (ex., the net neutrality
decision) and the international level (ex., OECD's Internet policy
principles). Equal footing MS policy devleopment model is just a facade
or rather a make-believe to keep at bay any attempt to challenge their
unipolar dominance over the global Internet.  Unfortunately, the US has
been quite successful at this strategy.

Why do we then not simply call their bluff, declare the emperor naked,
rather than playing the mute complicit courtiers! I find it a terrible
insult to common people's intelligence and political standing that US
can keep making such statements, in the smug knowledge that they have a
huge cultivated global constituency whereby no one is going to ask them
the questions that are so simple and obvious to ask. 

parminder


On Thursday 30 April 2015 02:19 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> I think so that it is clear that we are all talking about the same
> thing, perhaps we could hear from any of the “civil society”
> proponents of multistakeholderism on this list whether they see any
> distance between how Secretary Strickling formulates the concept(s)
> and their own position/formulation.
>
> Â 
>
> Jeremy, Avri, Jeanette, Wolfgang, Adam, Bill, Anriette, Milton, anyone?
>
> Â 
>
> M
>
> Â 
>
> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina
> Rossini
> *Sent:* April 29, 2015 5:17 AM
> *To:* <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
> *Subject:* [bestbits] Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant
> Secretary for Communications and Information Internet2 Global Summit
>
> Â 
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:Â *Joelle Tessler*Â <JTessler at ntia.doc.gov
> <mailto:JTessler at ntia.doc.gov>>
> Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:06 PM
> Subject: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global
> Summit
> To: Joelle Tessler <JTessler at ntia.doc.gov <mailto:JTessler at ntia.doc.gov>>
>
>
>   Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit
>
> Â 
>
> *Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling**
> *Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information*
> *Internet2 Global Summit*
> *Washington, D.C.*
> *April 28, 2015**
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit
>
> *--As Prepared for Delivery--*
>
> I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2’s Global Summit. 
> Internet2 has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62
> million Recovery Act broadband grant.  With this grant, Internet2 has
> lit or upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone
> network.  This 100 gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more
> than 93,000 community anchor institutions through Internet 2’s
> partnership with regional research and education networks.  Several
> of these networks also received NTIA grants so we know that in
> Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other states, the good work of
> Internet 2 and the research and education community is driving higher
> speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and other institutions of
> learning.
>
> However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband.  My topic
> today is Internet governance.  This is an important and timely issue
> for everyone who relies on the Internet but particularly for the
> members of Internet2.  As your website states, “the commercial
> Internet we know today was shaped by the vision and work of the people
> and organizations in the Internet2 community.”  Indeed, we only
> enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement of the academic
> community decades ago. 
>
> The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which
> the Internet evolved, were universities:Â  UCLA, Stanford, the
> University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of
> Utah.  The first message ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford. 
> We know from history that this first attempt to login crashed the
> system but the problem was quickly fixed and the rest is history. 
>
> New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are
> related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information
> across borders.  As we confront these challenges, we continue to
> debate a key question that has dominated international discussions
> over the last decade or so, specifically who should govern the
> Internet?  Who should make the decisions that determine what the
> Internet of tomorrow will look like?  How can we ensure that the
> decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue to thrive as
> the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy today?
>
> The debate has focused on two very different choices.  One choice is
> that governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance
> of the Internet.  This is the choice favored by authoritarian
> governments that want to restrict the information available to their
> citizens.  The other choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make
> these decisions through what is known as the multistakeholder model of
> Internet governance.
>
> What do we mean by the multistakeholder model?  One expert defines
> the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming
> together on an equal footing to “identify problems, define
> solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy
> development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.^[1]
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/print/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit#_ftn1>” 
>
> From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize:Â 
> participation and consensus decision-making.
>
> Let me start with participation.  Internet policy issues draw a much
> larger range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications
> issues.  One key benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they
> can include and engage all interested parties.  Such parties can
> include industry, civil society, government, technical and academic
> experts and even the general public.  The Internet is a diverse,
> multi-layered system that thrives only through the cooperation of many
> different parties.  Solving, or even meaningfully discussing, policy
> issues in this space, requires engaging these different parties. 
> Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested parties,
> multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative
> problem solving.
>
> The second key attribute is consensus decision-making.  It is
> important that stakeholders come together on an equal footing.  The
> best way to ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make
> decisions on a consensus basis.  Final decisions need to reflect the
> views of all stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of
> the stakeholder communities involved. 
>
> Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task
> Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN) have played a major role in the design and operation of the
> Internet and are directly responsible for its success.  Within the
> Obama Administration, we believe that maintaining and extending this
> model is important to ensure the continued growth and innovation of
> the Internet.
>
> There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet
> governance.  Both Republican and Democratic administrations have
> consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best
> mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be
> managed.  Congress agrees.  Earlier this spring, the Senate
> unanimously passed Senate Resolution 71, which states that the
> “United States remains committed to the multistakeholder model of
> Internet governance in which the private sector works in collaboration
> with civil society, governments, and technical experts in a
> consensus fashion.” 
>
> Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture.  We are continuing to
> oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder
> decision making with a process limited only to governments.  This
> debate came to a head in 2012 at the International
> Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International
> Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai.  At this meeting, governments
> split over whether the ITU, a United Nations organization in which
> only nations have a vote, should have more control over the
> Internet.  A majority of countries there supported greater
> governmental control. 
>
> However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of
> the multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in
> developing countries.  Democracies in the developed world have long
> supported the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking.  The
> Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a
> set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly
> endorse multistakeholder cooperation.  The OECD principles state,
> “multistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the
> flexibility and global scalability required to address Internet
> policy challenges.”
>
> What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing
> countries.  A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial
> conference, which brought together a wide range of stakeholders
> including technical experts, civil society groups, industry
> representatives and government officials, all on an equal footing with
> each other.  At this meeting not only did participants agree that
> Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder
> processes, the entire meeting was a demonstration of the open,
> participative, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the
> Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and
> innovation.
>
> Most recently, at the ITU’s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in
> Busan, Korea late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to
> preserve multistakeholder Internet governance.  The United States
> achieved all of its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU’s
> work focused on its current mandate and not expanding its role into
> Internet and cybersecurity issues. 
>
> This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical
> time.  Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the
> privatization of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the
> operation of the DNS is the performance of important technical
> functions known as the IANA functions, the most well known of which is
> the maintenance of the authoritative root zone file, the telephone
> book for the Internet that supports the routing of all traffic to
> websites. 
>
> The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA
> entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to
> transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the
> private sector.  A year ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a
> multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to take the final step
> to complete the transition of the U.S. stewardship over the IANA
> functions to the international community.  We did this to ensure that
> the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination continues.  Some
> governments have long bristled at the historical role the U.S.
> government has played in the DNS and have used our continued
> stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government
> control over how the Internet is governed.
>
> When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific
> conditions that must be addressed before this transition takes
> place.  First, the proposal must support and enhance the
> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be
> developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community
> support.  More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal
> that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental
> organization solution.  Second, the proposal must maintain the
> security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. 
> Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers
> and partners of the IANA services.  And finally, it must maintain the
> openness of the Internet.
>
> We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to
> our call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability,
> security and openness of the Internet.  The community is in the
> process of developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions
> as well as examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the
> global Internet community. 
>
> I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out
> these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process
> and will result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly accountable
> to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet
> community. 
>
> Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder
> discussions to design the transition plan.  Others of you are no
> doubt wondering why you should care about this transition and what is
> at stake for you.  The members of Internet2, such as universities and
> research institutions, depend on the free flow of information. 
> Completing the privatization of the Domain Name System is an important
> step to ensure that the Internet remains a global platform for the
> free exchange of ideas, commerce and social progress.
>
> Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks
> breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that
> has enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and
> businesses.  Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant
> impact on American companies that depend on the Internet to do
> business if other countries respond by erecting barriers to the free
> flow of information or worst case, abandoning the long-held belief in
> the power of a single Internet root. 
>
> The transition plan is being developed by the Internet’s
> stakeholders and must be a proposal that generates consensus support
> from the multistakeholder community.  All of you can play a role to
> ensure a good outcome.  First, I encourage you to participate in the
> transition planning process.  You are an important constituency and
> those crafting this plan must hear from you as this transition
> progresses.  Second, stay informed on the progress of the
> transition.  When the community completes its consensus plan, let
> your voice be heard in support of completing the transition.  We all
> have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains
> an open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades
> ago, the academic community played a central role in the development
> of the Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future.
>
> Thank you for listening.
>
> Â 
>
> Â 
>
> Joelle Tessler
>
> Manager of Stakeholder Relations and Outreach
>
> National Telecommunications and Information Administration
>
> U.S. Department of Commerce
>
> jtessler at ntia.doc.gov <mailto:jtessler at ntia.doc.gov>
>
> Â 
>
>
>
> Â 
>
> --Â 
>
> Â 
>
> --Â 
>
> /Carolina Rossini /
>
> /Vice President, International Policy and Strategy /
>
> *Public Knowledge*
>
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>
> + 1 6176979389 |Â skype: carolrossini |Â @carolinarossini
>
> Â 
>
> -- 
>
> Â 
>
> /Carolina Rossini /
>
> /Vice President, International Policy/
>
> *Public Knowledge*
>
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>
> + 1 6176979389 |Â skype: carolrossini |Â @carolinarossini
>
> Â 
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150430/e8ce27e5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From inet.media.law at gmail.com  Thu Apr 30 14:48:46 2015
From: inet.media.law at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?0JDQvdC00YDQtdC5INCf0LDQt9GO0Lo=?=)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:48:46 +0300
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Council_of_Europe=E2=80=99s_High_Level?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_Conference=2C_=E2=80=9CFreedom_of_Expression_is_still_the_Issu?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?e=E2=80=9D_13-14_October_2015/_Conf=C3=A9rence_du_Conseil_de_l?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=27Europe_de_haut_niveau=2C_=22La_libert=C3=A9_d=27expression_e?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?st_toujours_la_question=22?=
In-Reply-To: <2BC8C1F8EE620E4DBF566BCF5F804CE3A12E1974@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int>
References: <2BC8C1F8EE620E4DBF566BCF5F804CE3A12E1974@V-Linguistix00.key.coe.int>
Message-ID: <CAD4grWj4NEG=kL6B_SNpr_ypHUQjq36Sjbv1ygfWO2w9n2TMcg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Elvana
Please include my presentation THE RULE OF LAW AND THE INTERNET: PRACTICAL
STEPS TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS ONLINE to the conference schedule if its
relevant.
Thank you

Andrii

2015-04-30 15:35 GMT+03:00 THACI Elvana <Elvana.THACI at coe.int>:

>  Dear all,
>
>
>
> We are pleased to invite you to attend the High‐level Conference organised
> by the Council of Europe, “Freedom of Expression is Still the Issue” to be
> held on 13 and 14 October 2015 in the Hemicycle, Palais de l’Europe, in
> Strasbourg.
>
>
>
> During the Conference three key topics will be discussed; freedom of
> expression as a fundamental value of democracy; challenges to freedom of
> expression posed by the Internet and possible answers; the role of the
> European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court
> of Human Rights in the European legal landscape.
>
>
>
> Please find attached, for your information, the draft programme, which is
> also available on our website (http://www.coe.int/media). The working
> languages will be English and French for all sessions. Participants can
> register using the online registration system which will be made available
> from July to October 2015.
>
>
>
> Should you wish to obtain any further information concerning the
> Conference, please contact Ms Onur Andreotti, (tel: +33 3 88 41 42 12;
> e-mail: Onur.ANDREOTTI at coe.int), Coordinator of the Council of Europe
> Task Force on Freedom of Expression.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<
>
>
>
> Chers tous
>
>
>
> Nous avons le plaisir de vous inviter à participer à la Conférence de haut
> niveau « liberté d'expression est toujours la question » organisée par le
> Conseil l'Europe qui se tiendra les 13 et 14 octobre 2015 dans l’Hémicycle
> du Palais de l'Europe, à Strasbourg.
>
>
>
> La Conférence abordera les trois éléments clés suivants: la liberté
> d'expression comme valeur fondamentale de la démocratie; les défis de la
> liberté d'expression posés par l'Internet et les réponses possible ; le
> rôle de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme et de la
> jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme dans le paysage
> juridique européen.
>
>
>
> Je vous prie de trouver ci-joint pour information, le projet de programme
> qui est également disponible sur notre site (http://www.coe.int/media).
> Les langues de travail seront le français et l'anglais pour toutes les
> sessions. Les participants pourront s’inscrire en utilisant le formulaire
> d’enregistrement en ligne, disponible de juillet à octobre 2015.
>
>
>
> Nous espérons que vous serez en mesure de participer à cet événement.
>
>
>
> Pour de plus amples renseignements concernant la Conférence, n’hésitez pas
> à contacter  Mme Onur Andreotti, (tél: +33 3 88 41 42 12 ; e-mail:
> Onur.ANDREOTTI at coe.int), coordinatrice du Groupe de travail du Conseil
> l'Europe pour la liberté d'expression*.*
>
>
>
> Cordialement,
>
>
>
> Elvana Thaçi
>
> Council of Europe, Media & Internet
>
> + 33 (0) 3 90 21 56 98
> + 33 (0) 6 20 74 64 48
>
> elvana.thaci at coe.int
> [image: cid:image001.png at 01D03F0E.4AD6FD80]
> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Information-Society-Group/771851256242082?fref=ts>[image:
> cid:image002.png at 01D00B04.68105560] <https://twitter.com/elvanathaci>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150430/c6cde2b1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 895 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150430/c6cde2b1/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1447 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150430/c6cde2b1/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Apr 30 18:06:46 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:06:46 -0700
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <21825.4993.483415.349770@world.std.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org> <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com> <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org> <21825.4993.483415.349770@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <EC86BC42-F71A-4EA5-A387-AE3F751C164F@eff.org>

On Apr 29, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Ok, let's try this then:
> 
> Is EFF a stakeholder?
> 
> I don't mean in some hand-wavey feel-good "EVERYBODY is a
> STAKEHOLDER!" way.
> 
> I mean are they enfranchisable?
> 
> Say the ICANN proposal for the IANA transition is in its final form
> and looking for a formal vote of confidence.
> 
> A yes vote would make it happen, a no vote would likely send it back
> for several months of re-write. This is not just a feel-good poll.
> 
> The stakeholders are assembled and ready to be counted.
> 
> Is EFF one of them?

If EFF chooses to participate at ICANN (which it generally doesn't, though I realize this is a hypothetical), then it is going to be through the stakeholder structures that have been developed for doing that, such as the NPOC within the NCSG of the GNSO.[0]  I make no claims here about how legitimate or effective those particular structures are.

[0] Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency within the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of the Generic Names Supporting Organization

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


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

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

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