From nb at bollow.ch  Sun Feb  1 02:34:18 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 08:34:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
	<20150121190917.3066b781@quill>
	<54BFEF3A.6080307@alainet.org>
	<20150121194828.1ce2f9ef@quill>
	<b6bf4820c07c5c5367db7cfe2f2c89c1.squirrel@webmail.tni.org>
	<54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net>
	<207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
	<54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net>
	<54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
	<54C12314.2060407@alainet.org>
	<54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
	<54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net>
	<001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
	<009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
	<54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
	<"54CCB3C2.30
 808"@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
	<14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <20150201083418.086b8607@quill>

On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 01:41:01 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> Did you, by any chance, miss what he said about consensus and it's
> gradual breakdown over the past two years on this caucus?

No I didn't. And in fact I'm sufficiently well-aware of this problem
from my own observations that I don't need anyone to tell me that it
exists.

Now in spite of this problem, and in fact even acknowledging it, WK is
calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".

So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
voice" says concretely!

In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
than it would claim to be. 

Greetings,
Norbert

 
> On January 31, 2015 10:33:43 PM Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> > (-Cc all except the governance list)
> >
> > On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:02:32 +0100
> > <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> >
> > > 2. For civil society - probably the weakest partner in a full
> > > multistakeholder mechanism - it would be good to speak with one
> > > voice. This enhances to chances not only to be heard but also to
> > > participate in decision making.
> >
> > How would it be determined what this "one voice" says concretely?
> >
> > 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 kichango at gmail.com  Sun Feb  1 04:24:26 2015
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 09:24:26 +0000
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <20150121190917.3066b781@quill> <54BFEF3A.6080307@alainet.org>
 <20150121194828.1ce2f9ef@quill> <b6bf4820c07c5c5367db7cfe2f2c89c1.squirrel@webmail.tni.org>
 <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px=WSW8woJg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> ...
>  WK is
> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>
> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
> voice" says concretely!
>

I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
the issue implied by my statement.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
> > voice.
>
> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>

So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
(you choose your preferred adjective)?
Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
cannot always
do)
and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.

In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
untie (solve) in order to be functional again.

Mawaki


> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
> than it would claim to be.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150201/216311b2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Feb  1 07:01:19 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 13:01:19 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <20150121190917.3066b781@quill> <54BFEF3A.6080307@alainet.org>
 <20150121194828.1ce2f9ef@quill>
 <b6bf4820c07c5c5367db7cfe2f2c89c1.squirrel@webmail.tni.org>
 <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net>
 <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
 <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
 <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
 <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi

thx. for the discussion.

The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". 

If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..

Wolfgang



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
 
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> ...
>  WK is
> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>
> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
> voice" says concretely!
>

I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
the issue implied by my statement.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
> > voice.
>
> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>

So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
(you choose your preferred adjective)?
Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
cannot always
do)
and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.

In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
untie (solve) in order to be functional again.

Mawaki


> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
> than it would claim to be.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>


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

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Sun Feb  1 09:23:55 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 10:23:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <54CE36FB.6000601@gmail.com>


Dear Wolfgang,

i thank you very much for this clarification. In particular for:

"knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different 
nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , 
justice, access, knowledge, bridging the digital divide etc. .."

mamy greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


Am 01/02/2015 um 08:01 a.m. schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
> Hi
>
> thx. for the discussion.
>
> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept".
>
> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> ...
>>   WK is
>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>>
>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
>> voice" says concretely!
>>
>
> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
> state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
> the issue implied by my statement.
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
>>> voice.
>>
>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>>
>
> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
> (you choose your preferred adjective)?
> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
> what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
> how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
> cannot always
> do)
> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
> among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>
> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
> untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
>> than it would claim to be.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Mon Feb  2 04:49:47 2015
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:49:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>

Hi,

While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and
those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet
public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.

On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other
issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed
be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things
in a direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using
the IGC as a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we
should expect to reach consensus on these issues.

avri

On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi
>
> thx. for the discussion.
>
> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". 
>
> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>  
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> ...
>>  WK is
>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>>
>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
>> voice" says concretely!
>>
> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
> state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
> the issue implied by my statement.
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
>>> voice.
>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>>
> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
> (you choose your preferred adjective)?
> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
> what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
> how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
> cannot always
> do)
> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
> among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>
> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
> untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
>> than it would claim to be.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150202/eb9b886d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  2 08:07:09 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 05:07:09 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
Message-ID: <02a001d03ee9$27700820$76501860$@gmail.com>

Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.

 

M 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

 

Hi,

While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.

On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to reach consensus on these issues.

avri



On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:

Hi
 
thx. for the discussion.
 
The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". 
 
If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
 
Wolfgang
 
 
 
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
 
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow  <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
 

...
 WK is
calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
 
So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
voice" says concretely!
 

 
I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
the issue implied by my statement.
 
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow  <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
 

 
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
Mawaki Chango  <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
 

In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
voice.

 
In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
 

 
So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
(you choose your preferred adjective)?
Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
cannot always
do)
and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
 
In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
 
Mawaki
 
 

In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
than it would claim to be.
 
Greetings,
Norbert
 
 

 
 





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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150202/246b0382/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From sean at nexus.ie  Mon Feb  2 09:11:02 2015
From: sean at nexus.ie (Sean O Siochru)
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:11:02 +0000
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net>
 <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net>
 <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org>
 <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net>
 <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
 <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
 <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
 <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>

Hi Avri and everyone

Despite the heat in these discussions, I am more hopeful than you about a 
total polarisation between "those who support multistakeholder distributed 
mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support sovereign 
special rights on international Internet public policy".  Its possible to 
plausibly stake out a lot more common ground, which I know you too would 
like to see.

My position is that all stakeholders have a full right to have their views 
heard, listened to, and responded to (a right to communicate).  That debate 
must be structured and conducted in a manner that the public interest is to 
the fore, rather than sectional interests (the public interest is 
universal, by definition). It is interesting that even corporations always 
argue that what they propose is good for everyone, society as a whole, 
because the terms of the debate have to be set that way - everyone has to 
at least pretend they are arguing for the public interest. (We all know, of 
course, that corporate interest must - even legally - serve their 
shareholders first, representing mainly the wealthy; and indeed NGOs and 
governments harbour similar contradictions, though, I would argue, overall 
not as intense.)

So representing the public interest means that sectional interests cannot 
be allowed to have a significant or unfair advantage.  But to assess 
whether that is the case we have to look to the current alignment of 
forces, and away from the 'theoretical' or 'pretend' world of all 
stakeholders being equal and all interested in the public interest.

Currently (and this is a global and all-sectoral phenomenon) the corporate 
sector has huge financial resources compared to everyone else; furthermore 
the corporate sector has key powerful governments on its side.  Especially 
the US, but also many EU countries 'short circuit' debate in what is in the 
public interest (in particular as it relates to international politics), 
and identifies the public interest (national) with the interests of 'their' 
corporations. The US is the most explicit in identifying with their 
corporations (though there are in fact conflicting position within US 
corporations), forced by the needs of national political consumption - but 
in reality many, if not most, industrial countries do this. Then there is 
the influence of the corporate sector among NGOs; both the NGOs that 
explicitly represent the interests of the corporate sector and always have; 
and the ones whose positions are subtly or less subtly influenced by 
corporate donations and other forms of funding.

So in the current configuration of forces, it is virtually impossible to 
have fair and balanced multi-stakeholders discussion and debate, because of 
the huge and distorting influence of these stakeholders in the interests of 
particular sets of interests. Even to enter into these arenas of supposed 
multi-stakeholder debate risks given them a legitimacy they do not deserve 
(though there can be tactical reasons to do so).

The WSIS was interesting, because NGOs stole a march to some extent on 
corporate interests in terms of developing positions and articulating them, 
and was able to influence quite a few governments.  We were finding our 
voice, there were fewer material interests of people tied up with the whole 
area; and there were certainly fewer links between the corporate sector and 
NGOs (with the explicit exceptions of corporate-supporting NGOs),

So though I support multi-stakeholderism in debate and discussion, making 
it meaningful, and keeping the public interest to the fore gets more and 
more difficult. This, I think, is the 'split' in civil society on that 
issue:  Are all stakeholders able to articulate their views of what is in 
the public interest in the current structures? Or do some have too much 
control?  Unfortunately I believe the latter and that a serious rebalancing 
is needed.

One useful direction to take, I believe, is to bring in many more 'genuine' 
civil society voices, who are already active in social justice, in 
development, anti-imperialism etc. so that the terms of the debate are 
broadened.  The Internet Social Forum, to me, might hold that potential and 
breathe a bit of reality into discussions about the internet and IG.

However, in anything I said above, I did not mention decision-making - it 
was about discussion and debate, and about trying to establish what is in 
the public interest and trying to influence other - including the wider 
public - to these points of view. This is the public sphere.

International decision-making, and the appropriate structures to take more 
or less binding decisions, are not the same.  And this is where government 
do have a privileged role. I think this is what Avri is referring 
to:  "sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy 
issues" i.e. governments having special rights to take decisions.

Before I say any more:  I have already criticised US and EU governments - 
so I am under so illusion that they uniformly represent the public 
interest. And this is aside from the nasty regimes in so many countries 
whose pretense at representing their citizens is far flimsier, and 
maintained only by brutal force and repression.

Nevertheless, governments overall do in most cases represent one of the few 
modicums of hard-won democracy (every scrap of it won through struggle - 
the powerful never surrender power without a fight). And the United Nations 
structures do - few will deny - offer a level of legitimacy in key respects 
that is simply unavailable at the international level in any other 
stakeholder forum. So I do believe that UN agencies have 'special rights' 
on global issues of governance, and of course must be subject to the 
'special' responsibilities of transparency, accountability etc. that goes 
with those rights.  Yes, these rights are regularly abused by many states; 
and are very often exercises in hypocrisy; but there is still a greater 
core of legitimacy there than anywhere else.

So if I believe in multi-stakeholder debate and 'special rights' for UN 
governance. How are they connected?

In short, if multi-stakeholders debate works well and can generate ideas 
and approaches that are demonstrably in the public interest, and can 
persuade ever larger number of people of this, it can generate and sustain 
a public sphere in which governments are forced to act on these and where 
the room to manoeuvre for hypocrites and dictators is gradually squeezed. 
This is also where civil society at the national level can influence the 
global governance level. (The CRIS campaign, like so many, had a go at that.)

In fact I would go further than that.  Because it is not at all clear when 
it comes to the internet precisely which areas must be subject to binding 
decisions per se, and which can be subject to simple agreements, a rough 
consensus. It can reasonably be argued that the emphasis should always be 
in favour of the latter, that enforceable decisions should be kept, though 
design, to a minimum; and that agreements, including alternative parallel 
solutions, can co-exist for instance, should be maximised.

OK, crude and simple maybe, but at least this represents a case to support 
both fair and balanced multi-stakeholder debate and special - though 
circumscribed and scrutinised - rights for governments.

Of course, if someone wants to argued that government should have the 
exclusive right to debate and take decisions, and that the areas for 
decisions must be maximised; and others argue that government should have 
no special rights to decision making at all, then we are polarised. But 
very few actually take such hard positions. (Just Net Coalition does not, 
for instance).  There in my view still a big area of overlap that we can 
work on.

Sean

At 09:49 02/02/2015, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one 
>voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support 
>multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and 
>those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet 
>public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.
>
>On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most 
>fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other 
>issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed 
>be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in 
>a direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the 
>IGC as a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should 
>expect to reach consensus on these issues.
>
>avri
>
>On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi
>>
>>thx. for the discussion.
>>
>>The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the 
>>outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up 
>>open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common 
>>languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past 
>>from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, 
>>UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a 
>>principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in 
>>what you send, be liberal in what you accept".
>>
>>If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to 
>>reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak 
>>seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this 
>>"one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is 
>>united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, 
>>knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>>
>>Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: 
>><mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
>>im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
>>Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
>>An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
>>Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>
>>On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow 
>><mailto:nb at bollow.ch><nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>>  WK is
>>>calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>>>
>>>So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
>>>voice" says concretely!
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
>>It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
>>state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
>>(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
>>the issue implied by my statement.
>>
>>On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow 
>><mailto:nb at bollow.ch><nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>>>Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com><kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
>>>>voice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
>>>what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
>>>done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
>>>now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
>>>inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
>>(you choose your preferred adjective)?
>>Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
>>what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
>>non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
>>this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
>>how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
>>cannot always
>>do)
>>and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
>>among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>>
>>In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
>>untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>>
>>Mawaki
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
>>>such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
>>>whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
>>>than it would claim to be.
>>>
>>>Greetings,
>>>Norbert
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>> 
>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>> 
>><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: 
>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>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
>
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4273/9043 - Release Date: 02/02/15

Seán Ó Siochrú: sean at nexus.ie  tel: +353 1 272 0739  mobile: +353 87 2048150
14 Eaton Brae, Shankill, Co. Dublin, Ireland
NEXUS Research Cooperative http://www.nexus.ie/  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150202/dfb26105/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb  2 09:47:57 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 20:17:57 +0530
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net>
 <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net>
 <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org>
 <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net>
 <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
 <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
 <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
 <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
 <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
Message-ID: <14b4ac2fa38.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

While I am all for bringing more voices across civil society and indeed 
across other sectors to the table, there is an urgent need for capacity 
building given the specialized nature of igov.

After all a human rights or environment advocate can hardly be expected to 
be current in all the minutiae of igov any more than we can expect say a 
pediatrician to be able to perform open heart surgery.



On February 2, 2015 7:48:22 PM Sean O Siochru <sean at nexus.ie> wrote:

> Hi Avri and everyone
>
> Despite the heat in these discussions, I am more hopeful than you about a
> total polarisation between "those who support multistakeholder distributed
> mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support sovereign
> special rights on international Internet public policy".  Its possible to
> plausibly stake out a lot more common ground, which I know you too would
> like to see.
>
> My position is that all stakeholders have a full right to have their views
> heard, listened to, and responded to (a right to communicate).  That debate
> must be structured and conducted in a manner that the public interest is to
> the fore, rather than sectional interests (the public interest is
> universal, by definition). It is interesting that even corporations always
> argue that what they propose is good for everyone, society as a whole,
> because the terms of the debate have to be set that way - everyone has to
> at least pretend they are arguing for the public interest. (We all know, of
> course, that corporate interest must - even legally - serve their
> shareholders first, representing mainly the wealthy; and indeed NGOs and
> governments harbour similar contradictions, though, I would argue, overall
> not as intense.)
>
> So representing the public interest means that sectional interests cannot
> be allowed to have a significant or unfair advantage.  But to assess
> whether that is the case we have to look to the current alignment of
> forces, and away from the 'theoretical' or 'pretend' world of all
> stakeholders being equal and all interested in the public interest.
>
> Currently (and this is a global and all-sectoral phenomenon) the corporate
> sector has huge financial resources compared to everyone else; furthermore
> the corporate sector has key powerful governments on its side.  Especially
> the US, but also many EU countries 'short circuit' debate in what is in the
> public interest (in particular as it relates to international politics),
> and identifies the public interest (national) with the interests of 'their'
> corporations. The US is the most explicit in identifying with their
> corporations (though there are in fact conflicting position within US
> corporations), forced by the needs of national political consumption - but
> in reality many, if not most, industrial countries do this. Then there is
> the influence of the corporate sector among NGOs; both the NGOs that
> explicitly represent the interests of the corporate sector and always have;
> and the ones whose positions are subtly or less subtly influenced by
> corporate donations and other forms of funding.
>
> So in the current configuration of forces, it is virtually impossible to
> have fair and balanced multi-stakeholders discussion and debate, because of
> the huge and distorting influence of these stakeholders in the interests of
> particular sets of interests. Even to enter into these arenas of supposed
> multi-stakeholder debate risks given them a legitimacy they do not deserve
> (though there can be tactical reasons to do so).
>
> The WSIS was interesting, because NGOs stole a march to some extent on
> corporate interests in terms of developing positions and articulating them,
> and was able to influence quite a few governments.  We were finding our
> voice, there were fewer material interests of people tied up with the whole
> area; and there were certainly fewer links between the corporate sector and
> NGOs (with the explicit exceptions of corporate-supporting NGOs),
>
> So though I support multi-stakeholderism in debate and discussion, making
> it meaningful, and keeping the public interest to the fore gets more and
> more difficult. This, I think, is the 'split' in civil society on that
> issue:  Are all stakeholders able to articulate their views of what is in
> the public interest in the current structures? Or do some have too much
> control?  Unfortunately I believe the latter and that a serious rebalancing
> is needed.
>
> One useful direction to take, I believe, is to bring in many more 'genuine'
> civil society voices, who are already active in social justice, in
> development, anti-imperialism etc. so that the terms of the debate are
> broadened.  The Internet Social Forum, to me, might hold that potential and
> breathe a bit of reality into discussions about the internet and IG.
>
> However, in anything I said above, I did not mention decision-making - it
> was about discussion and debate, and about trying to establish what is in
> the public interest and trying to influence other - including the wider
> public - to these points of view. This is the public sphere.
>
> International decision-making, and the appropriate structures to take more
> or less binding decisions, are not the same.  And this is where government
> do have a privileged role. I think this is what Avri is referring
> to:  "sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy
> issues" i.e. governments having special rights to take decisions.
>
> Before I say any more:  I have already criticised US and EU governments -
> so I am under so illusion that they uniformly represent the public
> interest. And this is aside from the nasty regimes in so many countries
> whose pretense at representing their citizens is far flimsier, and
> maintained only by brutal force and repression.
>
> Nevertheless, governments overall do in most cases represent one of the few
> modicums of hard-won democracy (every scrap of it won through struggle -
> the powerful never surrender power without a fight). And the United Nations
> structures do - few will deny - offer a level of legitimacy in key respects
> that is simply unavailable at the international level in any other
> stakeholder forum. So I do believe that UN agencies have 'special rights'
> on global issues of governance, and of course must be subject to the
> 'special' responsibilities of transparency, accountability etc. that goes
> with those rights.  Yes, these rights are regularly abused by many states;
> and are very often exercises in hypocrisy; but there is still a greater
> core of legitimacy there than anywhere else.
>
> So if I believe in multi-stakeholder debate and 'special rights' for UN
> governance. How are they connected?
>
> In short, if multi-stakeholders debate works well and can generate ideas
> and approaches that are demonstrably in the public interest, and can
> persuade ever larger number of people of this, it can generate and sustain
> a public sphere in which governments are forced to act on these and where
> the room to manoeuvre for hypocrites and dictators is gradually squeezed.
> This is also where civil society at the national level can influence the
> global governance level. (The CRIS campaign, like so many, had a go at that.)
>
> In fact I would go further than that.  Because it is not at all clear when
> it comes to the internet precisely which areas must be subject to binding
> decisions per se, and which can be subject to simple agreements, a rough
> consensus. It can reasonably be argued that the emphasis should always be
> in favour of the latter, that enforceable decisions should be kept, though
> design, to a minimum; and that agreements, including alternative parallel
> solutions, can co-exist for instance, should be maximised.
>
> OK, crude and simple maybe, but at least this represents a case to support
> both fair and balanced multi-stakeholder debate and special - though
> circumscribed and scrutinised - rights for governments.
>
> Of course, if someone wants to argued that government should have the
> exclusive right to debate and take decisions, and that the areas for
> decisions must be maximised; and others argue that government should have
> no special rights to decision making at all, then we are polarised. But
> very few actually take such hard positions. (Just Net Coalition does not,
> for instance).  There in my view still a big area of overlap that we can
> work on.
>
> Sean
>
> At 09:49 02/02/2015, Avri Doria wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
> >voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
> >multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and
> >those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet
> >public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.
> >
> >On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> >fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other
> >issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed
> >be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in
> >a direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the
> >IGC as a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should
> >expect to reach consensus on these issues.
> >
> >avri
> >
> >On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>thx. for the discussion.
> >>
> >>The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
> >>outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up
> >>open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common
> >>languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past
> >>from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF,
> >>UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a
> >>principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in
> >>what you send, be liberal in what you accept".
> >>
> >>If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
> >>reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak
> >>seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this
> >>"one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is
> >>united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access,
> >>knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
> >>
> >>Wolfgang
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>Von:
> >><mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
> >>Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
> >>An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
> >>Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> >>
> >>On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow
> >><mailto:nb at bollow.ch><nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>...
> >>>  WK is
> >>>calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
> >>>
> >>>So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
> >>>voice" says concretely!
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
> >>It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
> >>state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
> >>(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
> >>the issue implied by my statement.
> >>
> >>On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow
> >><mailto:nb at bollow.ch><nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
> >>>Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com><kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
> >>>>voice.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
> >>>what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
> >>>done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
> >>>now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
> >>>inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
> >>(you choose your preferred adjective)?
> >>Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
> >>what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
> >>non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
> >>this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
> >>how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
> >>cannot always
> >>do)
> >>and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
> >>among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
> >>
> >>In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
> >>untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
> >>
> >>Mawaki
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
> >>>such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
> >>>whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
> >>>than it would claim to be.
> >>>
> >>>Greetings,
> >>>Norbert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>____________________________________________________________
> >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>
> >><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >>For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>
> >><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>      <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >>Translate this email:
> >><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>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
> >
> >No virus found in this message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4273/9043 - Release Date: 02/02/15
>
> Seán Ó Siochrú: sean at nexus.ie  tel: +353 1 272 0739  mobile: +353 87 2048150
> 14 Eaton Brae, Shankill, Co. Dublin, Ireland
> NEXUS Research Cooperative http://www.nexus.ie/
>
>
> ----------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150202/e0f760a3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  2 11:25:33 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:25:33 -0800
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to
 Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility - NYTimes.com
In-Reply-To: <B64339C6-A17E-48F9-9B66-F30A73064241@gmail.com>
References: <B64339C6-A17E-48F9-9B66-F30A73064241@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000601d03f04$e12ebca0$a38c35e0$@gmail.com>

Maybe we should invite Mr. Obama to join the JNC.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber via ip [mailto:ip at listbox.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 7:32 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility - NYTimes.com

> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/technology/in-net-neutrality-push-fcc-is-expected-to-propose-regulating-the-internet-as-a-utility.html?hpw&rref=business&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0 <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/technology/in-net-neutrality-push-fcc-is-expected-to-propose-regulating-the-internet-as-a-utility.html?hpw&rref=business&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0>


In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose

Regulating the Internet as a Utility

By STEVE LOHR FEB. 2, 2015

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission this week is widely expected to propose regulating Internet service like a public utility, a move certain to unleash another round of intense debate and lobbying about how to ensure so- called net neutrality, or an open Internet.

It is expected that the proposal will reclassify high-speed Internet service as a telecommunications service, instead of an information service, under Title II of the Communications Act, according to industry analysts, lobbyists and former F.C.C. staff members.

The change, the analysts and others say, which has been pushed by President Obama, would give the commission strong legal authority to ensure that no content is blocked and no so-called pay-to-play fast lanes exist — prohibitions that are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept.

But Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, will advocate a light-touch approach to Title II, they say, shunning the more intrusive aspects of utility-style regulation, like meddling in pricing decisions. He may also suggest putting wireless data services under Title II and adding regulations for companies that manage the backbone of the Internet.

The proposal is expected to be submitted to the agency’s commissioners by Thursday. Although the F.C.C. is not expected to release a copy of the plan this week, the contents are almost certain to leak out. A vote on the proposal by the full commission is scheduled for Feb. 26.

The maneuvering in Washington over the proposal has already started. Congressional Republicans have proposed net neutrality legislation that bans content blocking and fast and slow lanes, but also prevents the F.C.C. from issuing regulations to achieve those goals.

The F.C.C. proposal is Mr. Wheeler’s latest attempt to find a way to write open Internet rules that are politically palatable and that will stand up to legal scrutiny. Mr. Wheeler had initially proposed net neutrality rules that would not have classified Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II, and would have allowed the cable and telecommunications companies to strike deals with content companies and online services as long as they were “commercially reasonable.”

That approach brought a flood of critical comments into the F.C.C. last summer, saying it would open the door to fast lanes on the Internet for deep- pocketed companies and slow lanes for everyone else.

Then, in November, Mr. Obama took the unusual step of weighing in. He called on the F.C.C. to adopt the “strongest possible rules” on net neutrality, and specifically to classify high-speed broadband service as a utility under Title II. His rationale: “For most Americans, the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.”

That changed the political calculus for Mr. Wheeler, even though the F.C.C. is an independent agency. On most key votes, the five-member commission votes 3-2, with Mr. Wheeler joined by the other two Democrats.

“The moment Obama issued that statement, it meant the F.C.C. was going to adopt a Title II rule,” said Kevin Werbach, a former F.C.C. counsel and an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

The industry response to President Obama’s declaration was swift and divided along predictable lines. The Internet Association, whose members include Amazon, Facebook, Google and Netflix, applauded Mr. Obama and urged the F.C.C. to follow his lead to “ensure a free and open Internet.”

The major Internet service providers, like Comcast and AT&T, protested and said utility-style regulation would threaten their investment in faster broadband service, ultimately harming consumers.

In response to those critics, Mr. Wheeler is expected to point to the agency’s handling of mobile voice services.

In 1993, Congress deregulated the cellphone business, allowing new carriers to enter the market. The F.C.C. has regulated mobile voice services under Title II since then, applying the light-touch approach and the industry has grown and thrived.

Mobile data services, however, have not been regulated as a

telecommunications service. Mr. Wheeler, industry experts and lobbyists predict, will include mobile data services in his proposal. Today, about 55 percent of online traffic happens on smartphones and tablets.

David J. Farber is among those who have misgivings about going the Title II route. Mr. Farber helped design parts of the Internet, served on the board of the Internet Society and is a former chief technologist of the F.C.C.

“My fear,” Mr. Farber said, “is that regulating the Internet like a telecommunications service potentially opens a Pandora’s box.”

This commission, said Mr. Farber, a professor of computer science and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, may well have no intention of deploying the broader powers of Title II. But, he added, there is no guarantee that future commissions will be similarly restrained.

Information services, Mr. Farber noted, are relatively free of taxes, while telecommunications services are not, especially at the state level.

Telecommunications regulation, Mr. Farber said, is a step toward a more rigid regime at odds with the freewheeling innovation of the Internet economy.

Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School, sees the strong rules the F.C.C. is moving toward as a way to safeguard the norm of equal treatment of content on the Internet, rather than viewing them as a threat.

“And the norm — no fast lanes — has worked awfully well,” said Mr. Wu, who is credited with coining the term “net neutrality.”

“The reality,” he added, “is that we’ve seen start-ups in San Francisco, New York and across the country build new businesses on the Internet.”

Most of the focus of net neutrality has been on the broadband gateway into households. But Mr. Wheeler, according to industry experts and lobbyists, will probably also take up the issue of handling Internet traffic before it makes its way to consumer devices.

These Internet backbone companies that shuttle data, voice and video across the country are unseen by consumers. But the behavior and treatment of companies that operate in the so-called interconnect market does affect the user’s experience.

How smoothly a Netflix video stream of “House of Cards” plays on a subscriber’s screen, for example, reflects the performance of all the network operators that have transported the digital bits of that hit program.

These networks hand off their data payloads to the Internet service providers

that serve households. The handoff arrangements are private business deals. But industry experts and lobbyists say the F.C.C. wants to deter content blocking or discrimination in this market as well.

“If you prohibit paid fast lanes by the Internet service providers themselves, you want to make sure fast lanes aren’t just moving up and being created in the interconnect market,” Mr. Wu said.


-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20150202103149:988FD242-AAF0-11E4-B1B8-90062C25E515
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


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

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Feb  2 14:07:25 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 14:07:25 -0500
Subject: [governance] VIDEO: Governments and Internet Governance
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2civPMnF6M61N+3p2B0GXQcrj5gvU+Pp9Y45ThvLfjLw@mail.gmail.com>

Last Monday's event in Washington DC. ​ A healthy discussion, well attended
due to it being on the eve of State of the Net,  includes contributions
from Milton Mueller and George Sadowsky. Audio is a little rough for the
first two mins, but then improves.

 joly posted: " Today, Monday 26 January 2015 the Greater Washington DC
Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) and the Institute of
International Economic Policy (IIEP) present Governments and Internet
Governance . Despite their long experience in global and domestic"


[image: ISOC DC Human Rights in IG]
<http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/20150126InternetGovernance>On*
Monday
26 January 2015* the *Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society
<http://www.isoc-dc.org/>* (ISOC-DC) and the *Institute of International
Economic Policy <http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/> *(IIEP) presented *Governments
and Internet Governance
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/governments-and-internet-governance-tickets-15261753315/>
*. Despite their long experience in global and domestic governance,
policymakers from many nations struggle to find their way in Internet
governance. On one hand, only governments can join international
organizations such as the UN or WTO. However, the same governments do not
have a privileged role in Internet governance institutions such as the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF); the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN); or the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),
where governments are just one among many actors. Meanwhile, many other
stakeholders are increasingly concerned about increased participation by
governments in the technical infrastructure and governance bodies that
underpin the Internet. This event will examine several different
perspectives on participation by governments in Internet governance.
Panel: *Amr
Aljowaily*, Embassy of Egypt, NYC; *Sally Wentworth*, Vice President of
Global Policy Development, Internet Society; *Veni Markowski*, Bulgaria, VP
for UN Engagement, ICANN; *Dr. Andrea Gloriosio, *EU Commission*; Carolina
de Cresce El Debs, *Embassy of Brazil*; David Satola, *The World Bank*. *
Moderator:* Nancy Scola, *The Washington Post.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn5yVh2e_oA?rel=0&w=560&h=315>

*View on YouTube*: http://youtu.be/Jn5yVh2e_oA
*Transcribe on AMARA*: http://amara.org/en/videos/BCU33E1Fn9wu/
*Twitter*: @isocdc + #governance
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=isocdc%20governance&src=typd> |
#IntGov2015 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/intgov2015?f=realtime>


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7408#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7408#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7408






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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/20150202/220f6fef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bommelaer at isoc.org  Mon Feb  2 16:15:56 2015
From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 21:15:56 +0000
Subject: [governance] RSVP - ISOC Survey - Strengthening IG in 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAPcSPKUdVvqKzLrX3Odf2fbXm0F5+ksbkKF_02f-BtdbwJut+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJTVAjwFvYan4fFqKF2L4a9T-FUdPi4c0V4KOV0W1AaUz+vkxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAcMrVoyv=-snbgN4RgfaeZpA+UR1t=fZcf8B5A4z2igow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHwnKeHw3CWsX8V=rxDH4UGiYj0kLi_EfKnLQzz3Mfjt+aMe2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCecM-R0xySXFTNDL+vfO9PgaSNqFs2=uWoNm=7x8WyBCJ=rA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com>,<CAPcSPKUdVvqKzLrX3Odf2fbXm0F5+ksbkKF_02f-BtdbwJut+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1422911758658.15394@isoc.org>


Dear Colleagues,

The Internet Society (ISOC) is conducting a survey on Internet governance<http://www.internetsociety.org/survey-internet-governance>. The objective of this survey is to primarily ask you how we can strengthen mechanisms of the Internet governance ecosystem to better address policy challenges in 2015. It is also designed to help ISOC contribute to the current discussions on the evolution of the ecosystem. Some of the issues include: preparations for WSIS+10; the future of the IGF; the appropriate role of new platforms like the NETmundial Initiative (NMI); and enabling a successful IANA stewardship transition.

Your feedback and opinions will help us to understand the collective sentiment of the Internet community and will inform ISOC's approach as it looks to play its role to address these issues. For additional background on the survey, I encourage you to read Sally Wentworth's blog post<http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/02/take-brief-survey-help-strengthen-internet-governance-2015>.

The questions should take approximately 10 minutes to complete and we would be grateful if you could find the time to respond.  The survey will be open from 2 to 20 February. A synthesis report of responses will be made available on our website shortly after the survey closes.

We look forward to your participation!

Best regards,

Constance Bommelaer
Senior Director, Global Policy Partnerships
The Internet Society
www.isoc.org<http://www.isoc.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150202/75a63d47/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Feb  2 17:34:49 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 09:34:49 +1100
Subject: [governance] Update on NMI
Message-ID: <30DF7FE0205F407ABBF4C1D2B6E64DF7@Toshiba>

Please note the call for initial inputs into terms of reference (referred to below) is now open at https://www.netmundial.org/node/250.

Ian Peter

From: Ian Peter 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 6:55 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Update on NMI

Hi everyone, I am just posting this to IGC as a central list – please post to other lists if you feel it is necessary. This is just a quick update on the NMI Coordination Council activities. 

There is very little to report. The group mailing list got underway mid January, immediately forming a sub group to look at an approach to develop Terms of Reference. That sub group has had two phone calls – The first was poorly attended because it was called at short notice; I woke up one morning to find it underway for instance. 

After the first meeting NTIA (Larry Strickling and Fiona Alexander representing Penny Pritzker) decided to join the sub group. This caused a flurry of activity where many others joined as well, so the second sub group call had over 16 participants from a council of 21. It was something of a disaster because of technical problems with the link up.

Anyway – the only real activity is that on or around February 2 (if there are no more delays) a public call for input into terms of reference will be made. The CC sub group will then compile these inputs to put a draft terms of reference out for further public inputs. It may be that the technical platform used for NetMundial will be used for this activity. 

The objective is to have this finalised for a first face to face meeting of the Coordination Council on March 31 (venue to be determined)

You can find out more about the Council and NMI at www.netmundial.org. 

I will report back here periodically or when/if major developments occur. Right now there are a lot of questions up in the air for most of us involved and a lack of clarity on several operational aspects. It will take time to get these clarified.

Civil society and academic people involved who are regular participants here include Anriette Esterhuysen, Joao Carlos Caribe, Bill Drake, Marilia Maciel, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter and myself, as well as Jean Jacques Subrenat and Eileen Donohoe with other civil society affiliations.  The full CC membership can be found on the website referred to above.



Ian Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150203/6ba1c5df/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Feb  2 17:39:05 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 09:39:05 +1100
Subject: [governance] GCCS - The Hague, 16 and 17 April 2015
Message-ID: <7199AEEBC9A1419D811C59F40E847012@Toshiba>

Please note – deadline for expressions of interest in attending now extended to February 4.



From: Ian Peter 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:58 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: GCCS - The Hague, 16 and 17 April 2015

Just reposting this as applications close January 30. As I understand it there is still room for many more civil society participants, although most will have to pay their own. But whether you just wish to attend or whether you are seeking funding, expressions of interest are due by January 30.



We would like to bring to your attention the civil society call for expressions of interest to participate in the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS 2015) and a civil society pre-event, 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, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for strategic level discussion of key cyberspace issues. The Conference aims to examine core issues related to the cyber domain, structured around the three main themes of Freedom, Security and Growth. Focus will be placed on exchange of knowledge and ideas on these issues and the development of concrete solutions. The Conference will encourage multi-stakeholder participation from the worlds of business, academia as well as civil society.



A day and a half civil society pre-event will take place in the run-up to the Conference (14-15 April) to facilitate civil society coordination and input into the main Conference. An in-depth training on cyber security issues will be offered as part of this pre-event. In addition, an online training curriculum will be made available to the wider public. The Conference organisers are interested in a balanced and diverse participation and in supporting those who will find a practical use for the training and attendance offered.



The Expression of Interest Form, in addition to logging interest in attending the Conference and the civil society pre-event, will also serve as a platform to capture requests for financial support. Limited financial support is available for a number of civil society participants.



In order to be considered as a Conference/pre-event participant and/or a candidate for financial support, please fill in the Expression of Interest Form via the following link by January 30:https://www.gccs2015.com/civil-society-participation-form



Expressions of interest and requests for funding received will be evaluated by an ad hoc Advisory Board set up to assist the organizers of the Conference in selecting civil society participants to receive funding and to attend the GCCS2015 and the civil society pre-event, to help ensure that the Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.



Criteria for financial support are designed to ensure a diverse spread of applicants is achieved, focussing on global south applicants and aimed at securing a balance of gender, regional diversity and level of experience in cyber security issues.



Please feel free to share this information with your networks.



Best wishes,



On behalf of:

Andrew Puddephatt, Evelien Wijkstra, Tim Maurer

Advisory Board Co-chairs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150203/ffd41b42/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Tue Feb  3 04:17:36 2015
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:17:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <02a001d03ee9$27700820$76501860$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$76501860$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54D09230.7020705@acm.org>

Hi,

i tried to put it neutrally, quoting from an ITU document on the
position that I did not hold.

We obviously have very different views on democracy.  I believe in a
model of participatory democracy the includes representative democratic
actors and falls just short of direct democracy on every issue but
includes lots of open to all comment periods and consultations. Since
you do not consider that democracy, I have no idea what you might mean
by democracy.  I tend to not include dictatorships, autocratic
monarchies and theocracies in the set of democratic models.

avri



On 02-Feb-15 14:07, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe
> in and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe
> in the governance of the Internet by a self-appointed
> (multistakeholder) elite.
>
>  
>
> M
>
>  
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria
> *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>
>  
>
> Hi,
>
> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
> voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and
> those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet
> public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.
>
> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those
> other issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we
> made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to
> influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept. 
> While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger
> issues, I do not think we should expect to reach consensus on these
> issues.
>
> avri
>
> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
>     Hi
>
>      
>
>     thx. for the discussion.
>
>      
>
>     The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". 
>
>      
>
>     If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>
>      
>
>     Wolfgang
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>
>     Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
>
>     Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
>
>     An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
>
>     Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>
>      
>
>     On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>      
>
>         ...
>
>          WK is
>
>         calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>
>          
>
>         So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
>
>         voice" says concretely!
>
>          
>
>      
>
>     I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
>
>     It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
>
>     state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
>
>     (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
>
>     the issue implied by my statement.
>
>      
>
>     On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>      
>
>          
>
>         On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>
>         Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>          
>
>             In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
>
>             voice.
>
>          
>
>         In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
>
>         what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
>
>         done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
>
>         now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
>
>         inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>
>          
>
>      
>
>     So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
>
>     (you choose your preferred adjective)?
>
>     Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
>
>     what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
>
>     non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
>
>     this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
>
>     how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
>
>     cannot always
>
>     do)
>
>     and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
>
>     among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>
>      
>
>     In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
>
>     untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>
>      
>
>     Mawaki
>
>      
>
>      
>
>         In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
>
>         such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
>
>         whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
>
>         than it would claim to be.
>
>          
>
>         Greetings,
>
>         Norbert
>
>          
>
>          
>
>      
>
>      
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>
>     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/20150203/1348731d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Feb  3 04:40:27 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 20:40:27 +1100
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>   <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
Message-ID: <1CAED7B6E38445A6B247A2CD9B340862@Toshiba>

Great contribution Sean, I enjoyed reading it and the perspectives it presents.

One thing I might add is the value of some multistakeholder perspectives and involvement in a set of checks and balances that are part of a decision making process. I could envisage a situation where final decision making, if indeed made by governments, did not proceed without some fairly rigorous involvement of stakeholder groups in endorsing and examining (and supporting) proposed policy. How this would evolve exactly I am not sure, but this could evolve from the sorts of consultations that currently occur in many governmental decision making processes, often without meaning or as a rubber-stamping exercise, into something meaningful that actually became part of a more formal decision making process.

That makes more sense to me than trying to evolve some sort of representivity model within multistakeholderism that formally identified constituency based separate representation of some sort.

I’m sure others will have more to add.

Ian Peter

From: Sean O Siochru 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:11 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Avri Doria 
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Hi Avri and everyone

Despite the heat in these discussions, I am more hopeful than you about a total polarisation between "those who support multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy".  Its possible to plausibly stake out a lot more common ground, which I know you too would like to see.  

My position is that all stakeholders have a full right to have their views heard, listened to, and responded to (a right to communicate).  That debate must be structured and conducted in a manner that the public interest is to the fore, rather than sectional interests (the public interest is universal, by definition). It is interesting that even corporations always argue that what they propose is good for everyone, society as a whole, because the terms of the debate have to be set that way - everyone has to at least pretend they are arguing for the public interest. (We all know, of course, that corporate interest must - even legally - serve their shareholders first, representing mainly the wealthy; and indeed NGOs and governments harbour similar contradictions, though, I would argue, overall not as intense.)  

So representing the public interest means that sectional interests cannot be allowed to have a significant or unfair advantage.  But to assess whether that is the case we have to look to the current alignment of forces, and away from the 'theoretical' or 'pretend' world of all stakeholders being equal and all interested in the public interest. 

Currently (and this is a global and all-sectoral phenomenon) the corporate sector has huge financial resources compared to everyone else; furthermore the corporate sector has key powerful governments on its side.  Especially the US, but also many EU countries 'short circuit' debate in what is in the public interest (in particular as it relates to international politics), and identifies the public interest (national) with the interests of 'their' corporations. The US is the most explicit in identifying with their corporations (though there are in fact conflicting position within US corporations), forced by the needs of national political consumption - but in reality many, if not most, industrial countries do this. Then there is the influence of the corporate sector among NGOs; both the NGOs that explicitly represent the interests of the corporate sector and always have; and the ones whose positions are subtly or less subtly influenced by corporate donations and other forms of funding. 

So in the current configuration of forces, it is virtually impossible to have fair and balanced multi-stakeholders discussion and debate, because of the huge and distorting influence of these stakeholders in the interests of particular sets of interests. Even to enter into these arenas of supposed multi-stakeholder debate risks given them a legitimacy they do not deserve (though there can be tactical reasons to do so). 

The WSIS was interesting, because NGOs stole a march to some extent on corporate interests in terms of developing positions and articulating them, and was able to influence quite a few governments.  We were finding our voice, there were fewer material interests of people tied up with the whole area; and there were certainly fewer links between the corporate sector and NGOs (with the explicit exceptions of corporate-supporting NGOs), 

So though I support multi-stakeholderism in debate and discussion, making it meaningful, and keeping the public interest to the fore gets more and more difficult. This, I think, is the 'split' in civil society on that issue:  Are all stakeholders able to articulate their views of what is in the public interest in the current structures? Or do some have too much control?  Unfortunately I believe the latter and that a serious rebalancing is needed. 

One useful direction to take, I believe, is to bring in many more 'genuine' civil society voices, who are already active in social justice, in development, anti-imperialism etc. so that the terms of the debate are broadened.  The Internet Social Forum, to me, might hold that potential and breathe a bit of reality into discussions about the internet and IG.  

However, in anything I said above, I did not mention decision-making - it was about discussion and debate, and about trying to establish what is in the public interest and trying to influence other - including the wider public - to these points of view. This is the public sphere.  

International decision-making, and the appropriate structures to take more or less binding decisions, are not the same.  And this is where government do have a privileged role. I think this is what Avri is referring to:  "sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy issues" i.e. governments having special rights to take decisions. 

Before I say any more:  I have already criticised US and EU governments - so I am under so illusion that they uniformly represent the public interest. And this is aside from the nasty regimes in so many countries whose pretense at representing their citizens is far flimsier, and maintained only by brutal force and repression. 

Nevertheless, governments overall do in most cases represent one of the few modicums of hard-won democracy (every scrap of it won through struggle - the powerful never surrender power without a fight). And the United Nations structures do - few will deny - offer a level of legitimacy in key respects that is simply unavailable at the international level in any other stakeholder forum. So I do believe that UN agencies have 'special rights' on global issues of governance, and of course must be subject to the 'special' responsibilities of transparency, accountability etc. that goes with those rights.  Yes, these rights are regularly abused by many states; and are very often exercises in hypocrisy; but there is still a greater core of legitimacy there than anywhere else. 

So if I believe in multi-stakeholder debate and 'special rights' for UN governance. How are they connected?

In short, if multi-stakeholders debate works well and can generate ideas and approaches that are demonstrably in the public interest, and can persuade ever larger number of people of this, it can generate and sustain a public sphere in which governments are forced to act on these and where the room to manoeuvre for hypocrites and dictators is gradually squeezed. This is also where civil society at the national level can influence the global governance level. (The CRIS campaign, like so many, had a go at that.)  

In fact I would go further than that.  Because it is not at all clear when it comes to the internet precisely which areas must be subject to binding decisions per se, and which can be subject to simple agreements, a rough consensus. It can reasonably be argued that the emphasis should always be in favour of the latter, that enforceable decisions should be kept, though design, to a minimum; and that agreements, including alternative parallel solutions, can co-exist for instance, should be maximised.  

OK, crude and simple maybe, but at least this represents a case to support both fair and balanced multi-stakeholder debate and special - though circumscribed and scrutinised - rights for governments.  

Of course, if someone wants to argued that government should have the exclusive right to debate and take decisions, and that the areas for decisions must be maximised; and others argue that government should have no special rights to decision making at all, then we are polarised. But very few actually take such hard positions. (Just Net Coalition does not, for instance).  There in my view still a big area of overlap that we can work on. 

Sean 

At 09:49 02/02/2015, Avri Doria wrote:

  Hi,

  While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.

  On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to reach consensus on these issues.

  avri

  On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:





Hi

thx. for the discussion.

The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It
is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a
bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on
common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the
past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD,
IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of
a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be
conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". 

If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak
seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process,
knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of
different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights,
equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc.
..

Wolfgang



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von:
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum   On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow mailto:nb at bollow.ch wrote:





...  WK is
calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".

So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
voice" says concretely!





I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
the issue implied by my statement.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow mailto:nb at bollow.ch wrote:





On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
Mawaki Chango mailto:kichango at gmail.com wrote:





In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
voice.




In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.





So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
(you choose your preferred adjective)?
Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
cannot always
do)
and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.

In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
untie (solve) in order to be functional again.

Mawaki






In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
than it would claim to be.

Greetings,
Norbert












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

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

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

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

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

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

  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4273/9043 - Release Date: 02/02/15
Seán Ó Siochrú: sean at nexus.ie  tel: +353 1 272 0739  mobile: +353 87 2048150
14 Eaton Brae, Shankill, Co. Dublin, Ireland                    
NEXUS Research Cooperative http://www.nexus.ie/ 



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150203/54ab7939/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue Feb  3 04:55:42 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 04:55:42 -0500
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBz8c8hU8ot4YXqrv7M=RQVFy+PBb0Ly-XvoLeQVmwGFHA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
> voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those
> who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy
> issues, it seems highly unlikely.


The "multistakeholder distributed mechanisms" folks don't quite
comprehend the nature of the international arena, thinking they can
just go there and do MS-ism and that will fix the problems.

The "sovereign special rights" folks also don't quite comprehend the
nature of the international arena, thinking they can claim legitimacy
there while they haven't addressed fully how limits on states work.

Both sides have elements of truth, but what's needed to create the
type of stewardship context we want for the Internet is for both sides
to address the bits of truth on the other side -- from the standpoint
of thinking about how to correct for the defects in the international
arena.


Seth








> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other
> issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be
> able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a
> direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as
> a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to
> reach consensus on these issues.
>
> avri
>
> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> thx. for the discussion.
>
> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
> outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up
> open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge
> around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS
> WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF
> and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was
> inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be
> liberal in what you accept".
>
> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach
> rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with
> "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based
> on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as
> human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital
> divide etc. ..
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> ...
>  WK is
> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>
> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
> voice" says concretely!
>
> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
> state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
> the issue implied by my statement.
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
> voice.
>
> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>
> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
> (you choose your preferred adjective)?
> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
> what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
> how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
> cannot always
> do)
> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
> among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>
> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
> untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
> than it would claim to be.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 joly at punkcast.com  Tue Feb  3 05:21:45 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:21:45 -0500
Subject: [governance] VIDEO: Tech policy 2015: The year ahead @AEI
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk00UWuPN4TUkjLHbxLea09YSUf38AgdpXkO8aFtggeiBg@mail.gmail.com>

The AEI is a Washington DC thijnk tank established in 1938. While nominally
non-partisan, they are known for harboring right wing viewpoints. As the
Republican-controlled 114th Congress gets under way there is refreshed
vigor in tackling tech issues. Much of this is summed up in Senator Thune's
talk here, which lays out a comprehensive agenda.

We've already seen the House and Senate launch their own Open Internet
scheme. The FCC panelists seemed all to be resigned to a Title II
reclassication, and predicted it would turn out messy. The policy panel
considered that technical issues had become over politicized. Effort has to
be made by both sides to find compromise solutions. The CommActUpdate will
take time. The third 'governance' panel was spiced up by the presence of
David Post and Ambassador David Gross. In his remarks the Senator had
mentioned that Congress intends a hands on approach to the IANA transition.
He promised a hearing. Another topic was the announcement the day before by
the President of France that social media could be penalized for harboring
hate speech, with Andrea Glorioso from the audience invoking the specter of
global resistance to "US First Amendment imperialism" which was responded
to by another audience member who criticized European privacy
exceptionalism. There was back and forth over who has the real power,
states or the private sector.

I've broken the 4 hour live webcast into segments. Remember that you can
set YouTube to run at up to 2x speed to skim.

 joly posted: "On Wednesday January 28 2015 the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) hosted Tech policy 2015: The year ahead. The event
comprised 3 panels which examined the FCC, Congress, and international
regulatory processes respectively. Senator John Thune, chair of "


[image: AEI] <http://www.aei.org/>On *Wednesday January 28 2015* the *American
Enterprise Institute <http://www.aei.org/>* (AEI) hosted *Tech policy 2015:
The year ahead <http://www.aei.org/events/tech-policy-2015-year-ahead/>*.
The event comprised 3 panels which examined the FCC, Congress, and
international regulatory processes respectively. *Senator John Thune*,
chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
delivered a lunchtime keynote. Video is below.
*Twitter*: #ThuneatAEI <https://twitter.com/hashtag/thuneataei?f=realtime>

===

*PANEL: Regulatory activism at the FCC: Looking ahead to a busy year*

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV-NvM5SLfY?rel=0&start=388&end=4066&w=600&h=338>
*View on YouTube*: http://youtu.be/qV-NvM5SLfY?t=06m28s
*Speakers*: Richard Bennett, AEI; Matthew Berry, FCC;Babette Boliek,
AEI;Gus Hurwitz, AEI; Daniel Lyons, AEI.
*Moderator*: Mark Jamison, PURC, University of Florida

===

*KEYNOTE: John Thune, US Senate (R-SD)*

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV-NvM5SLfY?rel=0&start=4143&end=5863&w=600&h=338>
*View on YouTube*: http://youtu.be/qV-NvM5SLfY?t=1h09m20s
*Prepared statement*:
http://www.aei.org/publication/tech-policy-2015-year-ahead-thune-remarks/

===

*PANEL: Can Congress fix communications policy? Prospects for statutory
reform*

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV-NvM5SLfY?rel=0&start=6770&end=10563&w=600&h=338>
*View on YouTube*: http://youtu.be/qV-NvM5SLfY?t=1h52m50s
*Speakers*: Ray Baum, House Committee on Energy and Commerce; Peter
Davidson, Verizon; Mark Jamison, PURC, University of Florida; Roslyn
Layton, AEI; Bret Swanson, AEI.
*Moderator*: Richard Bennett, AEI

===

*PANEL: Cyberspace vs. nation states: Is the Internet (still) ungovernable?*
 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV-NvM5SLfY?rel=0&start=11204&w=600&h=338>
*View on YouTube*: http://youtu.be/qV-NvM5SLfY?t=3h6m43s
*Speakers*: David Gross, Wiley Rein LLP; David Post, New America
Foundation; Ariel Rabkin, AEI; Tom Sydnor, AEI; Shane Tews, AEI;
*Moderator*: Jeffrey Eisenach, AEI


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7435#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7435#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7435







-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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/20150203/fae673b7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Feb  3 07:53:40 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 13:53:40 +0100
Subject: [governance] democracy (was Re: Towards an Internet Social Forum)
In-Reply-To: <54D09230.7020705@acm.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
	<54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net>
	<54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
	<54C12314.2060407@alainet.org>
	<54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
	<54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net>
	<001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
	<009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
	<54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
	<14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
	<"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
	<02a001d03ee9$27700820$76501860$@gmail.com>
	<54D09230.7020705@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20150203135340.13785f3f@quill>

On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:17:36 +0100
Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> We obviously have very different views on democracy.  I believe in a
> model of participatory democracy the includes representative
> democratic actors and falls just short of direct democracy on every
> issue but includes lots of open to all comment periods and
> consultations. Since you do not consider that democracy, I have no
> idea what you might mean by democracy.

IMO, the characterization "a model.... that includes representative
democratic actors and falls just short of direct democracy on every
issue but includes lots of open to all comment periods and
consultations" is certainly consistent with democracy, but not in
itself sufficient to ensure that the model which is characterized
thusly is in fact democratic.

A central question is IMO: What happens when no consensus is reached?
Who has the power to decide what is to happen in that case?

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 gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 09:23:11 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 06:23:11 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D09230.7020705@acm.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$76501860$@gmail.com> <54D09230.7020705@acm.org>
Message-ID: <013401d03fbc$f0fb58b0$d2f20a10$@gmail.com>

Overall deferring to Sean’s excellent commentary let me just say (actually repeating since we have had this exact same discussion at least once before and my argument is clearly outlined in various of my blogposts.

 

“Democracy” for me is a principle of governance and does not refer to one or another instrumentality/mechanism of governing.  As a principle and at its most general, democracy points to governance by and for “the people” -- referring to how and to whom power is distributed (or derived) in relation to governmental decision making.  “Multi-stakeholderism”, whatever the lipstick you choose to apply is about power being distributed to/exercised by and for the few and selective, i.e. “stakeholders”, as Sean very effectively pointed out.

 

If we begin from the conventional definition of democracy that I’ve pointed to above then we are, of course challenged in how we realize this principle in a practical context. Since practical contexts change, the specific realization (mechanics of exercising democracy) will vary, and will, depending on the particular context include the modalities of the exercise of democracy you are mentioning below among others. 

 

I think for various reasons particularly because of technology change and attendant changes such as globalization, we are currently in a period of change for the methods/institutions of realizing democracy.  This does not mean that we should reject the principle and go off in search of a new principle of how power is to be distributed but rather we must work to re-adapt the institutional mechanisms for how democracy is realized in our new i.e. Internet enabled practical context.

 

So the democracy vs. multistakeholderism discussion is at its most basic quite simple—either you direct your efforts to building methods/institutions that support governance by and for the people, or you direct your efforts to building methods/institutions that support governance by and for elites; or as in the case of the NMI, building institutions/mechanisms for governance by and for an elite—the WEF 1%.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:18 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

 

Hi,

i tried to put it neutrally, quoting from an ITU document on the position that I did not hold.

We obviously have very different views on democracy.  I believe in a model of participatory democracy the includes representative democratic actors and falls just short of direct democracy on every issue but includes lots of open to all comment periods and consultations. Since you do not consider that democracy, I have no idea what you might mean by democracy.  I tend to not include dictatorships, autocratic monarchies and theocracies in the set of democratic models.

avri




On 02-Feb-15 14:07, michael gurstein wrote:

Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.

 

M 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

 

Hi,

While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.

On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to reach consensus on these issues.

avri

On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:

Hi
 
thx. for the discussion.
 
The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". 
 
If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
 
Wolfgang
 
 
 
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
 
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow  <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
 

...
 WK is
calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
 
So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
voice" says concretely!
 

 
I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
the issue implied by my statement.
 
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow  <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
 

 
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
Mawaki Chango  <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
 

In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
voice.

 
In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
 

 
So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
(you choose your preferred adjective)?
Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
cannot always
do)
and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
 
In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
 
Mawaki
 
 

In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
than it would claim to be.
 
Greetings,
Norbert
 
 

 
 

 

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

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150203/b1040405/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Tue Feb  3 15:48:50 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 22:48:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
Message-ID: <54D13432.5060909@apc.org>

Dear all (apologies for long message)

Thanks to Sean for his positive message. I agree with him that "Its possible to plausibly
stake out a lot more common ground" between - he quotes from Avri's message - "those who support
multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and 
those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet
public policy".

At least one way of achieving this is to avoid the tendency to posit dichotomies - for
example to say (and it has been said more than once on this list) that
civil society groups who work for the respect and promotion of human
rights on the internet have abandoned the struggle for social
justice. 

There are many people in civil society broadly
that work for both. Human rights comprises civil and political rights
and economic *and* social rights. At the level of people's
everyday reality these rights are indivisible from one another and
from social justice. The struggle for gender equality is a struggle
for both. And without the right to free expression, and without a
free media, it is impossible for people to speak out against economic
policies and political practice that deepens social injustice. 


In South Africa the only reason why we are still
able to talk about social injustice, and government policies that
entrench social inequality is because we still have freedom of
expression - something that did not exist here until after the demise
of apartheid.


Efforts by the South African government to limit
press freedom, and increase the State's ability to keep secrets, are
constant and both direct and indirect, but they are resisted by all
other than the political class. All you need to do is to look at
http://www.r2k.org.za/ to see how interlinked social justice and
human rights struggles are in South Africa. And I am sure this is not
that different in most other parts of the world. 


Respect for human rights is part of what is
needed to create more equal societies and a fairer distribution of
power and resources. It is not enough, but it is a very important
dimension of a broader struggle for social, economic and
environmental justice. 


It is important to acknowledge that part of the
reason that civil and political rights have had more attention than
economic, social, and cultural rights, is because powerful
governments and corporations promote these rights (selectively of
course) for their own interests. 


But that doesn't mean that those from CS who
have been fighting for human rights online have sold out, or that
civil and political rights on the internet are not important. It does
mean that we need to find better strategies to make progress on
economic, social and cultural rights, as well as on achieving social
justice.


New forums such as the Internet Social Forum
will be, I hope, such a strategy. It should be able to succeed on its
own merits/values rather than on deligitimising work that is already
being done by others. Acknowledging work already under way, and
challenging/supporting it to expand on how human rights are
understood in the online environment to include ESCR and social
justice will achieve far more in my view, than trying to discredit
existing efforts.


Another problematic claim made on this list is
that people from civil society who supported the NETmundial outcome
statement (many of those who were supportive, including APC, had some
reservations - see http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224) and who engage
in multistakeholder initiatives have 'sold out' and that all they are
doing is legitimising these spaces.


Firstly, it is simply not accurate to imply that
civil society activists who participate in spaces that are dominated
by either businesses or governments have inevitably been co-opted by
those spaces. 


This cannot be assumed to be true for civil
society who work in intergovernmental spaces such as the ITU where
civil society has very little influence other than working through
government delegations or for civil society working in
multi-stakeholder policy spaces such as ICANN.


Efforts to bring about change in policy and in
behaviour requires engaging those you disagree with. It also requires
forming coalitions and alliances, but unless those like-minded
alliances interact with actors they disagree with, they are not
likely to have much impact. Interaction takes many shapes: protest,
challenge, debate. It involves finding out where lines of division
are drawn, and also where there is possible common ground or
leverage.


I have never attended a WEF meeting but
left-wing colleagues from South African  and international civil
society involved in the campaign for access to medicines (HIV
retrovirals and TB meds) as well as those involved in GCAP (Global
Campaign Against Poverty) and climate change attend repeatedly to
speak out and to challenge business and governments. Their presence
in Davos does not necessarily mean they have been coopted. In the
campaign for access to medicines spaces like the WEF were an
important battle ground and was used by civil society to gain
government support to force pharmaceutical companies to change.


Secondly, to say that that civil society
participation in problematic bodies like the NETmundial Initiative
will achieving nothing other than legitimising them is questionable.
It will take far more than the presence of a few individuals from
civil society to legitimise the NMI. The NMI will rise or fall on
what it achieves and how transparent and inclusive its processes are.
Those of us who are involved are trying our best to use the NMI as an
opportunity to support the initiative started by the Brazilian
government with the NETmundial to deepen the understanding and
practice of multi-stakeholder governance, to take the best we can
from the Marco Civil and the experience of the CGI.br and make it go
further.


Of course there are different, and likely
conflicting, agendas in the NMI. But are there not conflicting
agendas in intergovernmental UN spaces? 


Sean, I fully share your view that UN spaces are
incredibly important and I also believe that our ultimate goal must
be to transform both global and national governance environments.


To achieve social justice civil society needs to
challenge both governments and businesses. To challenge them (and
their often complicit behaviour) we need to recognise that neither
'sector' is homogeneous, and we have to work in both
intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder spaces.


However, I question the assumption that 
multistakeholder policy spaces are more 'captured' by business interests than intergovernmental spaces are.


In my experience this is simply not true. A case
in point would be the mobile phone industry in Africa. It is rare to
find them in multistakeholder internet governance spaces. It is
common to find them at intergovernmental meetings and in
policy-making processes at national level. You don't have to scratch
very deep to identify which form of 'governance' serves their
interests best. It is not multi-stakeholder.


As a broad based forum of civil society
organisations and individuals working for public interest oriented
internet governance we (by 'we' I include many if not most people on
this list) should be able to benefit from being involved in different
types of IG platforms/institutions. In my view it is an advantage
that some people on this list are close to the ITU, or have ITU
membership (as I am happy to say APC has since the Plenipot).
Similarly it is in our interest that some of us work closely with
their national governments, while others participate in ICANN, the
NMI, or the IETF. 


The notion that only those who have rejected
engagement with multi-stakeholder spaces or approaches have a
legitimate claim to being part of the struggle for social justice
undermines our ability to collaborate, to deepen our analysis, and,
to be constructively critical of ourselves in ways that can help us
be more effective.


I don't want to minimise political differences
in civil society. Differences are real - but this space has become so
dominated by judgemental assumptions and lack of respect for one
another that we don't get to talk about these differences in a
helpful way. Let's argue those differences out in the form of
concrete interventions in policy processes rather than at the level
of personal or ideological accusations. 


If the Internet Social Forum creates a new space
for collaboration and linkages with broader civil society and social
movements it can be a dynamic and important new channel for civil
society working for fair inclusive public-interest oriented internet
governance.


If it is exclusive and judgemental, and
dismissive of the many people and organisations (including on this
list) who do not use the same jargon and who have not jumped on any
bandwagon in the polarised discussion that dominates this list, it
will deepen divisions and is not likely to be very effective in
meeting
is stated goals.


It is also not helpful when people assume that 
the ISF will be exclusive, judgemental, unwelcoming. Let's give it a
chance, participate, and use this opportunity to expand existing efforts.


Anriette




On 02/02/2015 16:11, Sean O Siochru wrote:
> Hi Avri and everyone
>
> Despite the heat in these discussions, I am more hopeful than you
> about a total polarisation between "those who support multistakeholder
> distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support
> sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy". 
> Its possible to plausibly stake out a lot more common ground, which I
> know you too would like to see. 
>
> My position is that all stakeholders have a full right to have their
> views heard, listened to, and responded to (a right to communicate). 
> That debate must be structured and conducted in a manner that the
> public interest is to the fore, rather than sectional interests (the
> public interest is universal, by definition). It is interesting that
> even corporations always argue that what they propose is good for
> everyone, society as a whole, because the terms of the debate have to
> be set that way - everyone has to at least /pretend /they are arguing
> for the public interest. (We all know, of course, that corporate
> interest must - even legally - serve their shareholders first,
> representing mainly the wealthy; and indeed NGOs and governments
> harbour similar contradictions, though, I would argue, overall not as
> intense.) 
>
> So representing the public interest means that sectional interests
> cannot be allowed to have a significant or unfair advantage.  But to
> assess whether that is the case we have to look to the current
> alignment of forces, and away from the 'theoretical' or 'pretend'
> world of all stakeholders being equal and all interested in the public
> interest.
>
> Currently (and this is a global and all-sectoral phenomenon) the
> corporate sector has huge financial resources compared to everyone
> else; furthermore the corporate sector has key powerful governments on
> its side.  Especially the US, but also many EU countries 'short
> circuit' debate in what is in the public interest (in particular as it
> relates to international politics), and identifies the public interest
> (national) with the interests of 'their' corporations. The US is the
> most explicit in identifying with their corporations (though there are
> in fact conflicting position within US corporations), forced by the
> needs of national political consumption - but in reality many, if not
> most, industrial countries do this. Then there is the influence of the
> corporate sector among NGOs; both the NGOs that explicitly represent
> the interests of the corporate sector and always have; and the ones
> whose positions are subtly or less subtly influenced by corporate
> donations and other forms of funding.
>
> So in the current configuration of forces, it is virtually impossible
> to have fair and balanced multi-stakeholders discussion and debate,
> because of the huge and distorting influence of these stakeholders in
> the interests of particular sets of interests. Even to enter into
> these arenas of supposed multi-stakeholder debate risks given them a
> legitimacy they do not deserve (though there can be tactical reasons
> to do so).
>
> The WSIS was interesting, because NGOs stole a march to some extent on
> corporate interests in terms of developing positions and articulating
> them, and was able to influence quite a few governments.  We were
> finding our voice, there were fewer material interests of people tied
> up with the whole area; and there were certainly fewer links between
> the corporate sector and NGOs (with the explicit exceptions of
> corporate-supporting NGOs),
>
> So though I support multi-stakeholderism in debate and discussion,
> making it meaningful, and keeping the public interest to the fore gets
> more and more difficult. This, I think, is the 'split' in civil
> society on that issue:  Are all stakeholders able to articulate their
> views of what is in the public interest in the current structures? Or
> do some have too much control?  Unfortunately I believe the latter and
> that a serious rebalancing is needed.
>
> One useful direction to take, I believe, is to bring in many more
> 'genuine' civil society voices, who are already active in social
> justice, in development, anti-imperialism etc. so that the terms of
> the debate are broadened.  The Internet Social Forum, to me, might
> hold that potential and breathe a bit of reality into discussions
> about the internet and IG. 
>
> However, in anything I said above, I did not mention decision-making -
> it was about /discussion and debate/, and about trying to establish
> what is in the public interest and trying to influence other -
> including the wider public - to these points of view. This is the
> public sphere. 
>
> International decision-making, and the appropriate structures to take
> more or less binding decisions, are not the same.  And this is where
> government do have a privileged role. I think this is what Avri is
> referring to:  "sovereign special rights on international Internet
> public policy issues" i.e. governments having special rights to take
> decisions.
>
> Before I say any more:  I have already criticised US and EU
> governments - so I am under so illusion that they uniformly represent
> the public interest. And this is aside from the nasty regimes in so
> many countries whose pretense at representing their citizens is far
> flimsier, and maintained only by brutal force and repression.
>
> Nevertheless, governments overall do in most cases represent one of
> the few modicums of hard-won democracy (every scrap of it won through
> struggle - the powerful never surrender power without a fight). And
> the United Nations structures do - few will deny - offer a level of
> legitimacy in key respects that is simply unavailable at the
> international level in any other stakeholder forum. So I do believe
> that UN agencies have 'special rights' on global issues of governance,
> and of course must be subject to the 'special' responsibilities of
> transparency, accountability etc. that goes with those rights.  Yes,
> these rights are regularly abused by many states; and are very often
> exercises in hypocrisy; but there is still a greater core of
> legitimacy there than anywhere else.
>
> So if I believe in multi-stakeholder debate and 'special rights' for
> UN governance. How are they connected?
>
> In short, if multi-stakeholders debate works well and can generate
> ideas and approaches that are demonstrably in the public interest, and
> can persuade ever larger number of people of this, it can generate and
> sustain a public sphere in which governments are forced to act on
> these and where the room to manoeuvre for hypocrites and dictators is
> gradually squeezed. This is also where civil society at the national
> level can influence the global governance level. (The CRIS campaign,
> like so many, had a go at that.) 
>
> In fact I would go further than that.  Because it is not at all clear
> when it comes to the internet precisely which areas must be subject to
> /binding decisions/ per se, and which can be subject to simple
> /agreements, /a rough consensus. It can reasonably be argued that the
> emphasis should always be in favour of the latter, that enforceable
> decisions should be kept, though design, to a minimum; and that
> agreements, including alternative parallel solutions, can co-exist for
> instance, should be maximised. 
>
> OK, crude and simple maybe, but at least this represents a case to
> support /both /fair and balanced multi-stakeholder debate /and
> /special - though circumscribed and scrutinised - rights for
> governments. 
>
> Of course, if someone wants to argued that government should have the
> exclusive right to debate and take decisions, and that the areas for
> decisions must be maximised; and others argue that government should
> have no special rights to decision making at all, then we are
> polarised. But very few actually take such hard positions. (Just Net
> Coalition does not, for instance).  There in my view still a big area
> of overlap that we can work on.
>
> Sean
>
> At 09:49 02/02/2015, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with
>> one voice, given the fundamental differences between those who
>> support multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy
>> issues and those who support sovereign special rights on
>> international Internet public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.
>>
>> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
>> fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those
>> other issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we
>> made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to
>> influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept. 
>> While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger
>> issues, I do not think we should expect to reach consensus on these
>> issues.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> thx. for the discussion.
>>>
>>> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It
>>> is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a
>>> bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on
>>> common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the
>>> past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD,
>>> IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of
>>> a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be
>>> conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". 
>>>
>>> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
>>> reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak
>>> seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process,
>>> knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of
>>> different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights,
>>> equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc.
>>> ..
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von:
>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
>>> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
>>> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>>  
>>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>  WK is
>>>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>>>>
>>>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
>>>> voice" says concretely!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
>>> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
>>> state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
>>> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
>>> the issue implied by my statement.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>>>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
>>>>> voice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
>>>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
>>>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
>>>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
>>>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
>>> (you choose your preferred adjective)?
>>> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
>>> what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
>>> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
>>> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
>>> how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
>>> cannot always
>>> do)
>>> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
>>> among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
>>> untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>>>
>>> Mawaki
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
>>>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
>>>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
>>>> than it would claim to be.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <%27http://www.avg.com%27>
>> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4273/9043 - Release Date: 02/02/15
>
> Seán Ó Siochrú: sean at nexus.ie  tel: +353 1 272 0739  mobile: +353 87
> 2048150
> 14 Eaton Brae, Shankill, Co. Dublin, Ireland                    
> NEXUS Research Cooperative http://www.nexus.ie/
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150203/e35dad59/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dgolumbia at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 18:41:36 2015
From: dgolumbia at gmail.com (David Golumbia)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:41:36 -0500
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
Message-ID: <CAJoS0DUokYbDndQp9NVpOUNJBx4qhN-dy0LQhkiYe5ZoxD9PSw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Sean O Siochru <sean at nexus.ie> wrote:

>
> However, in anything I said above, I did not mention decision-making - it
> was about *discussion and debate*, and about trying to establish what is
> in the public interest and trying to influence other - including the wider
> public - to these points of view. This is the public sphere.
>
> International decision-making, and the appropriate structures to take more
> or less binding decisions, are not the same.  And this is where government
> do have a privileged role. I think this is what Avri is referring to:  "sovereign
> special rights on international Internet public policy issues" i.e.
> governments having special rights to take decisions.
>
>
Because I appreciated Sean's email very much, and agreed with nearly
everything in it, I wanted to reiterate the sharp distinction he makes
above. I do this in part because the follow-up messages have not always
seemed to acknowledge it.

*Discussion and debate*, within democratic governance, can and should take
any number of forms. All "stakeholders" can and should be involved. That
doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the best ways for them to occur in any
given situation, but there should be and can be no particular restrictions
on the forms of such debates.

*Actual decisions and formally binding agreements* must be handled through
existing governmental systems. If you reject this--and I do read some here
and elsewhere in these discussions to be rejecting it--then you are
rejecting fundamental aspects of our current political system that are
widely understood as foundations of democracy. If you want to debate this
question and suggest alternative systems, fine. We should debate it. But
until this system is replaced with one that a vast majority agrees is as
democratic or more democratic than the current one, through a process that
is itself democratic, it is unacceptable for anyone but the duly-appointed
(and usually elected) officials to make those rules or enforce those laws.
Such actions are very literally *antidemocratic *unless those systems that
the vast majority of the population in most democratic polities takes to be
democratic assent to them.

I sit far outside the halls of governance, internet or otherwise, but I do
not have to look far to see companies like Google, Facebook, and Uber
repeatedly challenging exactly the formal role of government to make these
decisions, without the required public debate and governmental assent
required by democratic principles, often using rhetoric that suggests in
Alice-in-Wonderland fashion that it is somehow antidemocratic for
democratic governments to enforce their own laws, and it's hard for me to
imagine that same logic doesn't occur at every level of these discussions
(and I have quite a bit of evidence that it does occur there).

Obviously the existence of national and international standards-setting
bodies--some authorized and some not authorized by governmental
bodies--results in a lot of grey areas regarding what is and is not a
decision or binding agreement. However, given the centrality of democratic
principles to the world we currently live in, no matter how thoroughly
corrupted and benighted, there is every reason to err on the side of what
those principles require. The more "the internet" becomes a part of every
aspect of life, the more it should honor principles that the world has
spent hundreds of years developing, even if--*especially *if--what
ultimately results are new systems that honor those principles even more
fully.

-- 
David Golumbia
dgolumbia at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150203/9cf86a9d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nhklein at gmx.net  Tue Feb  3 21:37:23 2015
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:37:23 +0700
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <CAJoS0DUokYbDndQp9NVpOUNJBx4qhN-dy0LQhkiYe5ZoxD9PSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie> <CAJoS0DUokYbDndQp9NVpOUNJBx4qhN-dy0LQhkiYe5ZoxD9PSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54D185E3.1070801@gmx.net>

+1

Norbert Klein
Caambodia


On 02/04/2015 06:41 AM, David Golumbia wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Sean O Siochru <sean at nexus.ie
> <mailto:sean at nexus.ie>> wrote:
>
>
>     However, in anything I said above, I did not mention
>     decision-making - it was about /discussion and debate/, and about
>     trying to establish what is in the public interest and trying to
>     influence other - including the wider public - to these points of
>     view. This is the public sphere. 
>
>     International decision-making, and the appropriate structures to
>     take more or less binding decisions, are not the same.  And this
>     is where government do have a privileged role. I think this is
>     what Avri is referring to:  "sovereign special rights on
>     international Internet public policy issues" i.e. governments
>     having special rights to take decisions.
>
>
> Because I appreciated Sean's email very much, and agreed with nearly
> everything in it, I wanted to reiterate the sharp distinction he makes
> above. I do this in part because the follow-up messages have not
> always seemed to acknowledge it.
>
> /Discussion and debate/, within democratic governance, can and should
> take any number of forms. All "stakeholders" can and should be
> involved. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the best ways for
> them to occur in any given situation, but there should be and can be
> no particular restrictions on the forms of such debates.
>
> /Actual decisions and formally binding agreements/ must be handled
> through existing governmental systems. If you reject this--and I do
> read some here and elsewhere in these discussions to be rejecting
> it--then you are rejecting fundamental aspects of our current
> political system that are widely understood as foundations of
> democracy. If you want to debate this question and suggest alternative
> systems, fine. We should debate it. But until this system is replaced
> with one that a vast majority agrees is as democratic or more
> democratic than the current one, through a process that is itself
> democratic, it is unacceptable for anyone but the duly-appointed (and
> usually elected) officials to make those rules or enforce those laws.
> Such actions are very literally /antidemocratic /unless those systems
> that the vast majority of the population in most democratic polities
> takes to be democratic assent to them.
>
> I sit far outside the halls of governance, internet or otherwise, but
> I do not have to look far to see companies like Google, Facebook, and
> Uber repeatedly challenging exactly the formal role of government to
> make these decisions, without the required public debate and
> governmental assent required by democratic principles, often using
> rhetoric that suggests in Alice-in-Wonderland fashion that it is
> somehow antidemocratic for democratic governments to enforce their own
> laws, and it's hard for me to imagine that same logic doesn't occur at
> every level of these discussions (and I have quite a bit of evidence
> that it does occur there). 
>
> Obviously the existence of national and international
> standards-setting bodies--some authorized and some not authorized by
> governmental bodies--results in a lot of grey areas regarding what is
> and is not a decision or binding agreement. However, given the
> centrality of democratic principles to the world we currently live in,
> no matter how thoroughly corrupted and benighted, there is every
> reason to err on the side of what those principles require. The more
> "the internet" becomes a part of every aspect of life, the more it
> should honor principles that the world has spent hundreds of years
> developing, even if--/especially /if--what ultimately results are new
> systems that honor those principles even more fully.
>
> -- 
> David Golumbia
> dgolumbia at gmail.com <mailto:dgolumbia at gmail.com>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/ae505ce1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Wed Feb  4 03:39:47 2015
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:39:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D13432.5060909@apc.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie> <54D13432.5060909@apc.org>
Message-ID: <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com>

Hi

Excellent post Anriette, I agree on all points. Guilt by association with those advocating for different interests is not a path to mutual understanding and consensus, irrespective of whether it is pro-multistakeholder people criticizing pro-intergovernemental people or vice versa.   We should be trying to make both kinds of institutional arrangements work better from a CS standpoint, and the only way to do that is to engage.

The one key bit where I disagree with Sean is the notion, also invoked this morning by David, that multistakeholder agenda setting and debate is fine but actual decisions and formally binding agreements must be intergovernmental.  This is simply not how it works now in large areas of global IG, and to me at least it is literally inconceivable that an intergovernmental monopoly on decisions pertaining to names, numbers, technical standards, network security, e-commerce and other bits would have produced better results in the past or will happen and do so in the future.  So some of us try to work in the relevant multistakeholder spaces and make them better by inter alia attenuating the levels of ‘capture’ by powerful interests.  We win some and more often we lose some, just like in intergovernmental bodies.  But as Woody Allen said, 80 percent of life is just showing up.

Best

Bill



> On Feb 3, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear all (apologies for long message)
> 
> Thanks to Sean for his positive message. I agree with him that "Its possible to plausibly
> stake out a lot more common ground" between - he quotes from Avri's message - "those who support
> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and 
> those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet
> public policy".
> 
> At least one way of achieving this is to avoid the tendency to posit dichotomies - for
> example to say (and it has been said more than once on this list) that
> civil society groups who work for the respect and promotion of human
> rights on the internet have abandoned the struggle for social
> justice. 
> 
> There are many people in civil society broadly
> that work for both. Human rights comprises civil and political rights
> and economic and social rights. At the level of people's
> everyday reality these rights are indivisible from one another and
> from social justice. The struggle for gender equality is a struggle
> for both. And without the right to free expression, and without a
> free media, it is impossible for people to speak out against economic
> policies and political practice that deepens social injustice. 
> 
> 
> In South Africa the only reason why we are still
> able to talk about social injustice, and government policies that
> entrench social inequality is because we still have freedom of
> expression - something that did not exist here until after the demise
> of apartheid.
> 
> 
> Efforts by the South African government to limit
> press freedom, and increase the State's ability to keep secrets, are
> constant and both direct and indirect, but they are resisted by all
> other than the political class. All you need to do is to look at
> http://www.r2k.org.za/ <http://www.r2k.org.za/> to see how interlinked social justice and
> human rights struggles are in South Africa. And I am sure this is not
> that different in most other parts of the world. 
> 
> 
> Respect for human rights is part of what is
> needed to create more equal societies and a fairer distribution of
> power and resources. It is not enough, but it is a very important
> dimension of a broader struggle for social, economic and
> environmental justice. 
> 
> 
> It is important to acknowledge that part of the
> reason that civil and political rights have had more attention than
> economic, social, and cultural rights, is because powerful
> governments and corporations promote these rights (selectively of
> course) for their own interests. 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't mean that those from CS who
> have been fighting for human rights online have sold out, or that
> civil and political rights on the internet are not important. It does
> mean that we need to find better strategies to make progress on
> economic, social and cultural rights, as well as on achieving social
> justice.
> 
> 
> New forums such as the Internet Social Forum
> will be, I hope, such a strategy. It should be able to succeed on its
> own merits/values rather than on deligitimising work that is already
> being done by others. Acknowledging work already under way, and
> challenging/supporting it to expand on how human rights are
> understood in the online environment to include ESCR and social
> justice will achieve far more in my view, than trying to discredit
> existing efforts.
> 
> 
> Another problematic claim made on this list is
> that people from civil society who supported the NETmundial outcome
> statement (many of those who were supportive, including APC, had some
> reservations - see http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224 <http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224>) and who engage
> in multistakeholder initiatives have 'sold out' and that all they are
> doing is legitimising these spaces.
> 
> 
> Firstly, it is simply not accurate to imply that
> civil society activists who participate in spaces that are dominated
> by either businesses or governments have inevitably been co-opted by
> those spaces. 
> 
> 
> This cannot be assumed to be true for civil
> society who work in intergovernmental spaces such as the ITU where
> civil society has very little influence other than working through
> government delegations or for civil society working in
> multi-stakeholder policy spaces such as ICANN.
> 
> 
> Efforts to bring about change in policy and in
> behaviour requires engaging those you disagree with. It also requires
> forming coalitions and alliances, but unless those like-minded
> alliances interact with actors they disagree with, they are not
> likely to have much impact. Interaction takes many shapes: protest,
> challenge, debate. It involves finding out where lines of division
> are drawn, and also where there is possible common ground or
> leverage.
> 
> 
> I have never attended a WEF meeting but
> left-wing colleagues from South African  and international civil
> society involved in the campaign for access to medicines (HIV
> retrovirals and TB meds) as well as those involved in GCAP (Global
> Campaign Against Poverty) and climate change attend repeatedly to
> speak out and to challenge business and governments. Their presence
> in Davos does not necessarily mean they have been coopted. In the
> campaign for access to medicines spaces like the WEF were an
> important battle ground and was used by civil society to gain
> government support to force pharmaceutical companies to change.
> 
> 
> Secondly, to say that that civil society
> participation in problematic bodies like the NETmundial Initiative
> will achieving nothing other than legitimising them is questionable.
> It will take far more than the presence of a few individuals from
> civil society to legitimise the NMI. The NMI will rise or fall on
> what it achieves and how transparent and inclusive its processes are.
> Those of us who are involved are trying our best to use the NMI as an
> opportunity to support the initiative started by the Brazilian
> government with the NETmundial to deepen the understanding and
> practice of multi-stakeholder governance, to take the best we can
> from the Marco Civil and the experience of the CGI.br <http://cgi.br/> and make it go
> further.
> 
> 
> Of course there are different, and likely
> conflicting, agendas in the NMI. But are there not conflicting
> agendas in intergovernmental UN spaces? 
> 
> 
> Sean, I fully share your view that UN spaces are
> incredibly important and I also believe that our ultimate goal must
> be to transform both global and national governance environments.
> 
> 
> To achieve social justice civil society needs to
> challenge both governments and businesses. To challenge them (and
> their often complicit behaviour) we need to recognise that neither
> 'sector' is homogeneous, and we have to work in both
> intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder spaces.
> 
> 
> However, I question the assumption that 
> multistakeholder policy spaces are more 'captured' by business interests than intergovernmental spaces are.
> 
> 
> In my experience this is simply not true. A case
> in point would be the mobile phone industry in Africa. It is rare to
> find them in multistakeholder internet governance spaces. It is
> common to find them at intergovernmental meetings and in
> policy-making processes at national level. You don't have to scratch
> very deep to identify which form of 'governance' serves their
> interests best. It is not multi-stakeholder.
> 
> 
> As a broad based forum of civil society
> organisations and individuals working for public interest oriented
> internet governance we (by 'we' I include many if not most people on
> this list) should be able to benefit from being involved in different
> types of IG platforms/institutions. In my view it is an advantage
> that some people on this list are close to the ITU, or have ITU
> membership (as I am happy to say APC has since the Plenipot).
> Similarly it is in our interest that some of us work closely with
> their national governments, while others participate in ICANN, the
> NMI, or the IETF. 
> 
> 
> The notion that only those who have rejected
> engagement with multi-stakeholder spaces or approaches have a
> legitimate claim to being part of the struggle for social justice
> undermines our ability to collaborate, to deepen our analysis, and,
> to be constructively critical of ourselves in ways that can help us
> be more effective.
> 
> 
> I don't want to minimise political differences
> in civil society. Differences are real - but this space has become so
> dominated by judgemental assumptions and lack of respect for one
> another that we don't get to talk about these differences in a
> helpful way. Let's argue those differences out in the form of
> concrete interventions in policy processes rather than at the level
> of personal or ideological accusations. 
> 
> 
> If the Internet Social Forum creates a new space
> for collaboration and linkages with broader civil society and social
> movements it can be a dynamic and important new channel for civil
> society working for fair inclusive public-interest oriented internet
> governance.
> 
> 
> If it is exclusive and judgemental, and
> dismissive of the many people and organisations (including on this
> list) who do not use the same jargon and who have not jumped on any
> bandwagon in the polarised discussion that dominates this list, it
> will deepen divisions and is not likely to be very effective in
> meeting
> is stated goals.
> 
> 
> It is also not helpful when people assume that 
> the ISF will be exclusive, judgemental, unwelcoming. Let's give it a
> chance, participate, and use this opportunity to expand existing efforts.
> 
> 
> Anriette
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/1c38f120/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  4 04:27:16 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:57:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie> <54D13432.5060909@apc.org> <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54D1E5F4.5030607@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 04 February 2015 02:09 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Excellent post Anriette, I agree on all points. Guilt by association 
> with those advocating for different interests is not a path to mutual 
> understanding and consensus, irrespective of whether it is 
> pro-multistakeholder people criticizing pro-intergovernemental people 
> or vice versa.   We should be trying to make both kinds of 
> institutional arrangements work better from a CS standpoint, and the 
> only way to do that is to engage.
>
> The one key bit where I disagree with Sean is the notion, also invoked 
> this morning by David, that multistakeholder agenda setting and debate 
> is fine but actual decisions and formally binding agreements must be 
> intergovernmental.  This is simply not how it works now in large areas 
> of global IG, and to me at least it is literally inconceivable that an 
> intergovernmental monopoly on decisions pertaining to names, numbers, 
> technical standards, network security, e-commerce and other bits would 
> have produced better results in the past or will happen and do so in 
> the future.

Just to avoid making it an either-or scenario and allow that to be used 
to justify this one governance form (MSism), generally and universally, 
over the other (representative political decision making), let me 
clarify how some of us see the complex range of decision making 
requirements for issues and subjects ranging from the highly technical 
to the very social, and a range of issues/ subjects in between.

One can simplify and say that there are two basic principles to be 
followed in a democracy, which are as follows, in a descending hierarchy 
of importance.

1. For any issue that is of a public nature, its decision making process 
should be democratic.

2. Subject to the above, the extent of technical expertise required for 
decision making has to be adequately provided for in any decision making 
process. This will vary from one type of issue to another.

(I like the definition of technical that someone mentioned as things 
that most people do not understand well... As time passes, many of the 
technical thing become increasingly social...)

For issues and subjects that are quite social, and their larger 
structures and implications commonly understood, these are to be 
directly subject to representative political decision-making in any 
democracy, while of course these structures will have the necessary 
bureaucratic and expertise support, and of the processes of 
participatory democracy.

For such issues that are admittedly quite technical, and require 
considerable expertise, it is often necessary to develop committed 
decision making structures that are dominated by experts. How and which 
experts get to make decisions need to be an appropriately 'sound', even 
if not a fully political, process.

Further, any such technical decision making process, even while shielded 
from ad hoc interference from what could be ill-informed political 
structures, require some kind of rules based, arms length, political 
oversight, to ensure conformity both of the decision making structures 
and their outcomes to the wider public interest.

This still leaves unresolved who will decide whether an issue is of 
technical nature or a political one. As far as possible, this should be 
done in a rules based manner, but if found impossible to do so it would 
be subject to a political decision, the representative political 
decision making structures being always higher than the technical ones 
as per the mentioned hierarchy in the above cited principles.

Bill, you mention a range of issues, which are of a very different 
nature on the technical to social-political spectrum, and will therefore 
require different appropriate decision making mechanisms. I dont think 
it is good to mix them to make a point in favour of one kind of 
governance structure over another.

I for instance am happy with the existing CIR governance system if it is 
put in an appropriate relationship with a rules based and arms- length 
political oversight system, which is globally democratic, in being 
representative -political.  On the other hand, I cannot see how issues 
of e-commerce can be decided by any system other than which is directly 
political -democratic- representative . The requirements of decision- 
making about global e-commerce are very different from those of say 
numbers allocation.

>  So some of us try to work in the relevant multistakeholder spaces and 
> make them better by inter alia attenuating the levels of ‘capture’ by 
> powerful interests.  We win some and more often we lose some, just 
> like in intergovernmental bodies.

As discussed above, we need to work across a range of different 
combinations of MS and gov based decision making structures, and not 
speak of one against the other.... Whether some arrangement is better 
than another *can only be spoken of and argued for in specific contexts* 
and as referring to specific kinds of issues, and not generally, as you 
do here.

parminder

>  But as Woody Allen said, 80 percent of life is just showing up.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>> On Feb 3, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org 
>> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all (apologies for long message)
>>
>> Thanks to Sean for his positive message. I agree with him that "Its possible to plausibly
>> stake out a lot more common ground" between- he quotes from Avri's message -"those who support
>> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and
>> those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet
>> public policy".
>>
>> At least one way of achieving this is to avoid the tendency to posit dichotomies - for
>> exampleto say (and it has been said more than once on this list)that
>> civil society groups who work for the respect and promotion of human
>> rights on the internet have abandoned the struggle for social
>> justice.
>>
>> There are many people in civil society broadly
>> that work for both. Human rights comprises civil and political rights
>> and economic*and*  social rights. At the level of people's
>> everyday reality these rights are indivisible from one another and
>> from social justice. The struggle for gender equality is a struggle
>> for both. And without the right to free expression, and without a
>> free media, it is impossible for people to speak out against economic
>> policies and political practice that deepens social injustice.
>>
>>
>> In South Africa the only reason why we are still
>> able to talk about social injustice, and government policies that
>> entrench social inequality is because we still have freedom of
>> expression - something that did not exist here until after the demise
>> of apartheid.
>>
>>
>> Efforts by the South African government to limit
>> press freedom, and increase the State's ability to keep secrets, are
>> constant and both direct and indirect, but they are resisted by all
>> other than the political class. All you need to do is to look at
>> http://www.r2k.org.za/  to see how interlinked social justice and
>> human rights struggles are in South Africa. And I am sure this is not
>> that different in most other parts of the world.
>>
>>
>> Respect for human rights is part of what is
>> needed to create more equal societies and a fairer distribution of
>> power and resources. It is not enough, but it is a very important
>> dimension of a broader struggle for social, economic and
>> environmental justice.
>>
>>
>> It is important to acknowledge that part of the
>> reason that civil and political rights have had more attention than
>> economic, social, and cultural rights, is because powerful
>> governments and corporations promote these rights (selectively of
>> course) for their own interests.
>>
>>
>> But that doesn't mean that those from CS who
>> have been fighting for human rights online have sold out, or that
>> civil and political rights on the internet are not important. It does
>> mean that we need to find better strategies to make progress on
>> economic, social and cultural rights, as well as on achieving social
>> justice.
>>
>>
>> New forums such as the Internet Social Forum
>> will be, I hope, such a strategy. It should be able to succeed on its
>> own merits/values rather than on deligitimising work that is already
>> being done by others. Acknowledging work already under way, and
>> challenging/supporting it to expand on how human rights are
>> understood in the online environment to include ESCR and social
>> justice will achieve far more in my view, than trying to discredit
>> existing efforts.
>>
>>
>> Another problematic claim made on this list is
>> that people from civil society who supported the NETmundial outcome
>> statement (many of those who were supportive, including APC, had some
>> reservations - seehttp://www.apc.org/en/node/19224) and who engage
>> in multistakeholder initiatives have 'sold out' and that all they are
>> doing is legitimising these spaces.
>>
>>
>> Firstly, it is simply not accurate to imply that
>> civil society activists who participate in spaces that are dominated
>> by either businesses or governments have inevitably been co-opted by
>> those spaces.
>>
>>
>> This cannot be assumed to be true for civil
>> society who work in intergovernmental spaces such as the ITU where
>> civil society has very little influence other than working through
>> government delegations or for civil society working in
>> multi-stakeholder policy spaces such as ICANN.
>>
>>
>> Efforts to bring about change in policy and in
>> behaviour requires engaging those you disagree with. It also requires
>> forming coalitions and alliances, but unless those like-minded
>> alliances interact with actors they disagree with, they are not
>> likely to have much impact. Interaction takes many shapes: protest,
>> challenge, debate. It involves finding out where lines of division
>> are drawn, and also where there is possible common ground or
>> leverage.
>>
>>
>> I have never attended a WEF meeting but
>> left-wing colleagues from South African  and international civil
>> society involved in the campaign for access to medicines (HIV
>> retrovirals and TB meds) as well as those involved in GCAP (Global
>> Campaign Against Poverty) and climate change attend repeatedly to
>> speak out and to challenge business and governments. Their presence
>> in Davos does not necessarily mean they have been coopted. In the
>> campaign for access to medicines spaces like the WEF were an
>> important battle ground and was used by civil society to gain
>> government support to force pharmaceutical companies to change.
>>
>>
>> Secondly, to say that that civil society
>> participation in problematic bodies like the NETmundial Initiative
>> will achieving nothing other than legitimising them is questionable.
>> It will take far more than the presence of a few individuals from
>> civil society to legitimise the NMI. The NMI will rise or fall on
>> what it achieves and how transparent and inclusive its processes are.
>> Those of us who are involved are trying our best to use the NMI as an
>> opportunity to support the initiative started by the Brazilian
>> government with the NETmundial to deepen the understanding and
>> practice of multi-stakeholder governance, to take the best we can
>> from the Marco Civil and the experience of theCGI.br  <http://cgi.br/>  and make it go
>> further.
>>
>>
>> Of course there are different, and likely
>> conflicting, agendas in the NMI. But are there not conflicting
>> agendas in intergovernmental UN spaces?
>>
>>
>> Sean, I fully share your view that UN spaces are
>> incredibly important and I also believe that our ultimate goal must
>> be to transform both global and national governance environments.
>>
>>
>> To achieve social justice civil society needs to
>> challenge both governments and businesses. To challenge them (and
>> their often complicit behaviour) we need to recognise that neither
>> 'sector' is homogeneous, and we have to work in both
>> intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder spaces.
>>
>>
>> However, I question the assumption that
>> multistakeholder policy spaces are more 'captured' by business interests than intergovernmental spaces are.
>>
>>
>> In my experience this is simply not true. A case
>> in point would be the mobile phone industry in Africa. It is rare to
>> find them in multistakeholder internet governance spaces. It is
>> common to find them at intergovernmental meetings and in
>> policy-making processes at national level. You don't have to scratch
>> very deep to identify which form of 'governance' serves their
>> interests best. It is not multi-stakeholder.
>>
>>
>> As a broad based forum of civil society
>> organisations and individuals working for public interest oriented
>> internet governance we (by 'we' I include many if not most people on
>> this list) should be able to benefit from being involved in different
>> types of IG platforms/institutions. In my view it is an advantage
>> that some people on this list are close to the ITU, or have ITU
>> membership (as I am happy to say APC has since the Plenipot).
>> Similarly it is in our interest that some of us work closely with
>> their national governments, while others participate in ICANN, the
>> NMI, or the IETF.
>>
>>
>> The notion that only those who have rejected
>> engagement with multi-stakeholder spaces or approaches have a
>> legitimate claim to being part of the struggle for social justice
>> undermines our ability to collaborate, to deepen our analysis, and,
>> to be constructively critical of ourselves in ways that can help us
>> be more effective.
>>
>>
>> I don't want to minimise political differences
>> in civil society. Differences are real - but this space has become so
>> dominated by judgemental assumptions and lack of respect for one
>> another that we don't get to talk about these differences in a
>> helpful way. Let's argue those differences out in the form of
>> concrete interventions in policy processes rather than at the level
>> of personal or ideological accusations.
>>
>>
>> If the Internet Social Forum creates a new space
>> for collaboration and linkages with broader civil society and social
>> movements it can be a dynamic and important new channel for civil
>> society working for fair inclusive public-interest oriented internet
>> governance.
>>
>>
>> If it is exclusive and judgemental, and
>> dismissive of the many people and organisations (including on this
>> list) who do not use the same jargon and who have not jumped on any
>> bandwagon in the polarised discussion that dominates this list, it
>> will deepen divisions and is not likely to be very effective in
>> meeting
>> is stated goals.
>>
>>
>> It is also not helpful when people assume that
>> the ISF will be exclusive, judgemental, unwelcoming. Let's give it a
>> chance, participate, and use this opportunity to expand existing efforts.
>>
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150204/f5fe8e49/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Wed Feb  4 05:13:22 2015
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:13:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D1E5F4.5030607@itforchange.net>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
 <54D13432.5060909@apc.org> <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com> <54D1E5F4.5030607@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <67DFC256-448E-419A-9D1B-48695A806778@gmail.com>

Hi Parminder

Just to clarify,

> On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:27 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> Bill, you mention a range of issues, which are of a very different nature on the technical to social-political spectrum, and will therefore require different appropriate decision making mechanisms. I dont think it is good to mix them to make a point in favour of one kind of governance structure over another. 
> 
> I for instance am happy with the existing CIR governance system if it is put in an appropriate relationship with a rules based and arms- length political oversight system, which is globally democratic, in being representative -political.  On the other hand, I cannot see how issues of e-commerce can be decided by any system other than which is directly political -democratic- representative . The requirements of decision- making about global e-commerce are very different from those of say numbers allocation. 

For e-commerce there are a mix of governance mechanisms at the various non-national levels, i.e. regional, transnational, pluriliateral, multilateral.  Some are strictly intergovernmental like the WTO, UNCITRAL or UNIDROIT; some are intergovernmental with some bounded forms of stakeholder participation like OECD and the EC; some are multistakeholder like OASIS; some are purely industry like GS1/EPCglobal, EDIFICE, etc etc.  It’s a mix, depending on the the issues/functions involved and how broadly/narrowly you want to construe "e-commerce.”  My point was that a lot of the detailed operational stuff on standards, authentication, and contracting etc., especially for B2B, is nongovernmental, and a priori it’s not obvious exactly where that could or should change.

Best

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/ef204252/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From sean at nexus.ie  Wed Feb  4 05:26:10 2015
From: sean at nexus.ie (Sean O Siochru)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:26:10 +0000
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net>
 <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org>
 <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net>
 <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
 <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
 <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
 <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
 <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
 <54D13432.5060909@apc.org>
 <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20150204095540.07fb5990@mail.nexus.ie>

Hi all

Personally, I think the comments sent re. my note do point to more in 
common that separates (at least most of) us.  While some even slight 
nuances threaten to veer off into wide chasms, they usually don't have to.

It is very hard for anyone to disagree with Mike's basic point that this is 
about building institutions that support governance by and for the people 
and not about the specific form/structure in which this happens.  So all 
structures have to be examined against that principle. I completely agree 
with Anriette about the interconnectedness of human rights and social and 
political - I have always argued that communication rights must necessarily 
bring them together.

The road to achieving any of this is going to involve a lot of tactical as 
well as strategic manoeuvres, and these we are not going to always agree on 
- whether and how to participate in multi-stakeholder forums is going to 
remain one of them. If we keep talking, we can understand these 
differences, hopefully, as tactical or even strategic and not veer off into 
fundamentals.

I wanted to come back to Bill's point very briefly.

A 'binding decision' mean different things, especially in the context of 
the internet. I did say that I would favour a shift in the direction of 
decisions by (democratic and genuine) consensus among all stakeholders  - 
and would include some of the areas for decision that you, Bill, mention.

But even intergovernmental organisations have 'binding' decision undermined 
by the evolution of technology or maneuvering of others.  e.g.  government 
can agree what they like between them, but wider dynamics can simply sweep 
that aside (which is not always a bad thing). The history of 
telecommunications in the last 30 years is a prime example of that 
(remember accounting rates and all the other and the scramble to the ITU to 
stay relevant).

Second 'binding' decisions can also mean decisions by monopoly or 
oligopolies corporations that in effect dictate that way things are for the 
vast majority of people (Microsoft, google, facebook etc.).

So we have to return to the democratic principles all the time, as Mike 
says, and ask ourselves: which direction is this going in?  What is the 
bigger picture of governance here?

Sean


At 08:39 04/02/2015, William Drake wrote:
>Hi
>
>Excellent post Anriette, I agree on all points. Guilt by association with 
>those advocating for different interests is not a path to mutual 
>understanding and consensus, irrespective of whether it is 
>pro-multistakeholder people criticizing pro-intergovernemental people or 
>vice versa.   We should be trying to make both kinds of institutional 
>arrangements work better from a CS standpoint, and the only way to do that 
>is to engage.
>
>The one key bit where I disagree with Sean is the notion, also invoked 
>this morning by David, that multistakeholder agenda setting and debate is 
>fine but actual decisions and formally binding agreements must be 
>intergovernmental.  This is simply not how it works now in large areas of 
>global IG, and to me at least it is literally inconceivable that an 
>intergovernmental monopoly on decisions pertaining to names, numbers, 
>technical standards, network security, e-commerce and other bits would 
>have produced better results in the past or will happen and do so in the 
>future.  So some of us try to work in the relevant multistakeholder spaces 
>and make them better by inter alia attenuating the levels of ‘capture’ 
>by powerful interests.  We win some and more often we lose some, just like 
>in intergovernmental bodies.  But as Woody Allen said, 80 percent of life 
>is just showing up.
>
>Best
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>>On Feb 3, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen 
>><<mailto:anriette at apc.org>anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Dear all (apologies for long message)
>>
>>Thanks to Sean for his positive message. I agree with him that "Its 
>>possible to plausibly
>>stake out a lot more common ground" between - he quotes from Avri's 
>>message - "those who support
>>multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and
>>those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet
>>public policy".
>>
>>At least one way of achieving this is to avoid the tendency to posit 
>>dichotomies - for
>>example to say (and it has been said more than once on this list) that
>>civil society groups who work for the respect and promotion of human
>>rights on the internet have abandoned the struggle for social
>>justice.
>>
>>There are many people in civil society broadly
>>that work for both. Human rights comprises civil and political rights
>>and economic and social rights. At the level of people's
>>everyday reality these rights are indivisible from one another and
>>from social justice. The struggle for gender equality is a struggle
>>for both. And without the right to free expression, and without a
>>free media, it is impossible for people to speak out against economic
>>policies and political practice that deepens social injustice.
>>
>>
>>In South Africa the only reason why we are still
>>able to talk about social injustice, and government policies that
>>entrench social inequality is because we still have freedom of
>>expression - something that did not exist here until after the demise
>>of apartheid.
>>
>>
>>Efforts by the South African government to limit
>>press freedom, and increase the State's ability to keep secrets, are
>>constant and both direct and indirect, but they are resisted by all
>>other than the political class. All you need to do is to look at
>><http://www.r2k.org.za/>http://www.r2k.org.za/ to see how interlinked 
>>social justice and
>>human rights struggles are in South Africa. And I am sure this is not
>>that different in most other parts of the world.
>>
>>
>>Respect for human rights is part of what is
>>needed to create more equal societies and a fairer distribution of
>>power and resources. It is not enough, but it is a very important
>>dimension of a broader struggle for social, economic and
>>environmental justice.
>>
>>
>>It is important to acknowledge that part of the
>>reason that civil and political rights have had more attention than
>>economic, social, and cultural rights, is because powerful
>>governments and corporations promote these rights (selectively of
>>course) for their own interests.
>>
>>
>>But that doesn't mean that those from CS who
>>have been fighting for human rights online have sold out, or that
>>civil and political rights on the internet are not important. It does
>>mean that we need to find better strategies to make progress on
>>economic, social and cultural rights, as well as on achieving social
>>justice.
>>
>>
>>New forums such as the Internet Social Forum
>>will be, I hope, such a strategy. It should be able to succeed on its
>>own merits/values rather than on deligitimising work that is already
>>being done by others. Acknowledging work already under way, and
>>challenging/supporting it to expand on how human rights are
>>understood in the online environment to include ESCR and social
>>justice will achieve far more in my view, than trying to discredit
>>existing efforts.
>>
>>
>>Another problematic claim made on this list is
>>that people from civil society who supported the NETmundial outcome
>>statement (many of those who were supportive, including APC, had some
>>reservations - see 
>><http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224>http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224) and 
>>who engage
>>in multistakeholder initiatives have 'sold out' and that all they are
>>doing is legitimising these spaces.
>>
>>
>>Firstly, it is simply not accurate to imply that
>>civil society activists who participate in spaces that are dominated
>>by either businesses or governments have inevitably been co-opted by
>>those spaces.
>>
>>
>>This cannot be assumed to be true for civil
>>society who work in intergovernmental spaces such as the ITU where
>>civil society has very little influence other than working through
>>government delegations or for civil society working in
>>multi-stakeholder policy spaces such as ICANN.
>>
>>
>>Efforts to bring about change in policy and in
>>behaviour requires engaging those you disagree with. It also requires
>>forming coalitions and alliances, but unless those like-minded
>>alliances interact with actors they disagree with, they are not
>>likely to have much impact. Interaction takes many shapes: protest,
>>challenge, debate. It involves finding out where lines of division
>>are drawn, and also where there is possible common ground or
>>leverage.
>>
>>
>>I have never attended a WEF meeting but
>>left-wing colleagues from South African  and international civil
>>society involved in the campaign for access to medicines (HIV
>>retrovirals and TB meds) as well as those involved in GCAP (Global
>>Campaign Against Poverty) and climate change attend repeatedly to
>>speak out and to challenge business and governments. Their presence
>>in Davos does not necessarily mean they have been coopted. In the
>>campaign for access to medicines spaces like the WEF were an
>>important battle ground and was used by civil society to gain
>>government support to force pharmaceutical companies to change.
>>
>>
>>Secondly, to say that that civil society
>>participation in problematic bodies like the NETmundial Initiative
>>will achieving nothing other than legitimising them is questionable.
>>It will take far more than the presence of a few individuals from
>>civil society to legitimise the NMI. The NMI will rise or fall on
>>what it achieves and how transparent and inclusive its processes are.
>>Those of us who are involved are trying our best to use the NMI as an
>>opportunity to support the initiative started by the Brazilian
>>government with the NETmundial to deepen the understanding and
>>practice of multi-stakeholder governance, to take the best we can
>>from the Marco Civil and the experience of the <http://cgi.br/>CGI.br and 
>>make it go
>>further.
>>
>>
>>Of course there are different, and likely
>>conflicting, agendas in the NMI. But are there not conflicting
>>agendas in intergovernmental UN spaces?
>>
>>
>>Sean, I fully share your view that UN spaces are
>>incredibly important and I also believe that our ultimate goal must
>>be to transform both global and national governance environments.
>>
>>
>>To achieve social justice civil society needs to
>>challenge both governments and businesses. To challenge them (and
>>their often complicit behaviour) we need to recognise that neither
>>'sector' is homogeneous, and we have to work in both
>>intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder spaces.
>>
>>
>>However, I question the assumption that
>>multistakeholder policy spaces are more 'captured' by business interests 
>>than intergovernmental spaces are.
>>
>>
>>In my experience this is simply not true. A case
>>in point would be the mobile phone industry in Africa. It is rare to
>>find them in multistakeholder internet governance spaces. It is
>>common to find them at intergovernmental meetings and in
>>policy-making processes at national level. You don't have to scratch
>>very deep to identify which form of 'governance' serves their
>>interests best. It is not multi-stakeholder.
>>
>>
>>As a broad based forum of civil society
>>organisations and individuals working for public interest oriented
>>internet governance we (by 'we' I include many if not most people on
>>this list) should be able to benefit from being involved in different
>>types of IG platforms/institutions. In my view it is an advantage
>>that some people on this list are close to the ITU, or have ITU
>>membership (as I am happy to say APC has since the Plenipot).
>>Similarly it is in our interest that some of us work closely with
>>their national governments, while others participate in ICANN, the
>>NMI, or the IETF.
>>
>>
>>The notion that only those who have rejected
>>engagement with multi-stakeholder spaces or approaches have a
>>legitimate claim to being part of the struggle for social justice
>>undermines our ability to collaborate, to deepen our analysis, and,
>>to be constructively critical of ourselves in ways that can help us
>>be more effective.
>>
>>
>>I don't want to minimise political differences
>>in civil society. Differences are real - but this space has become so
>>dominated by judgemental assumptions and lack of respect for one
>>another that we don't get to talk about these differences in a
>>helpful way. Let's argue those differences out in the form of
>>concrete interventions in policy processes rather than at the level
>>of personal or ideological accusations.
>>
>>
>>If the Internet Social Forum creates a new space
>>for collaboration and linkages with broader civil society and social
>>movements it can be a dynamic and important new channel for civil
>>society working for fair inclusive public-interest oriented internet
>>governance.
>>
>>
>>If it is exclusive and judgemental, and
>>dismissive of the many people and organisations (including on this
>>list) who do not use the same jargon and who have not jumped on any
>>bandwagon in the polarised discussion that dominates this list, it
>>will deepen divisions and is not likely to be very effective in
>>meeting
>>is stated goals.
>>
>>
>>It is also not helpful when people assume that
>>the ISF will be exclusive, judgemental, unwelcoming. Let's give it a
>>chance, participate, and use this opportunity to expand existing efforts.
>>
>>
>>Anriette
>
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4281/9054 - Release Date: 02/04/15

Seán Ó Siochrú: sean at nexus.ie  tel: +353 1 272 0739  mobile: +353 87 2048150
14 Eaton Brae, Shankill, Co. Dublin, Ireland
NEXUS Research Cooperative http://www.nexus.ie/  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/2ed951da/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  4 05:33:56 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:03:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <67DFC256-448E-419A-9D1B-48695A806778@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie> <54D13432.5060909@apc.org> <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com> <54D1E5F4.5030607@itforchange.net> <67DFC256-448E-419A-9D1B-48695A806778@gmail.co!
 m>
Message-ID: <54D1F594.8010108@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 04 February 2015 03:43 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> Just to clarify,
>
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:27 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Bill, you mention a range of issues, which are of a very different 
>> nature on the technical to social-political spectrum, and will 
>> therefore require different appropriate decision making mechanisms. I 
>> dont think it is good to mix them to make a point in favour of one 
>> kind of governance structure over another.
>>
>> I for instance am happy with the existing CIR governance system if it 
>> is put in an appropriate relationship with a rules based and arms- 
>> length political oversight system, which is globally democratic, in 
>> being representative -political.  On the other hand, I cannot see how 
>> issues of e-commerce can be decided by any system other than which is 
>> directly political -democratic- representative . The requirements of 
>> decision- making about global e-commerce are very different from 
>> those of say numbers allocation.
>
> For e-commerce there are a mix of governance mechanisms at the various 
> non-national levels, i.e. regional, transnational, pluriliateral, 
> multilateral.  Some are strictly intergovernmental like the WTO, 
> UNCITRAL or UNIDROIT; some are intergovernmental with some bounded 
> forms of stakeholder participation like OECD and the EC;

Bill

I see no contradiction between what you say and my statements.  Yes, 
these above are all inter gov decision making systems, because they deal 
with core economic-social-political aspects of e-commerce. The rest 
below that you mention deal with the more technical aspects of e-com, 
and can appropriately have expertise based structures. We indeed agree 
here.


> some are multistakeholder like OASIS; some are purely industry like 
> GS1/EPCglobal, EDIFICE, etc etc.  It’s a mix, depending on the the 
> issues/functions involved and how broadly/narrowly you want to 
> construe "e-commerce.”  My point was that a lot of the detailed 
> operational stuff on standards, authentication, and contracting etc., 
> especially for B2B, is nongovernmental, and a priori it’s not obvious 
> exactly where that could or should change.


Agree. As I said in my email, I dont think it is necessary to change 
governance structures related to technical and operational issues even 
if they are of multistakeholder or private sector kind. These may be the 
most appropriate ones for the subject under consideration. I only said 
that:

(1) For those Internet related public policy issues that are of a core 
social-political nature we need inter gov systems with appropriate 
stakeholder consultative participation (as in OECD/ EC that you refer to 
above).

And

(2) For technical/ operational decision making, any conflict  or 
interface with issues of public policy nature will require special 
rules-based arms-length political oversight systems of some kind.

The question is whether you agree with these two propositions or not.

parminder




>
> Best
>
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/7e218e10/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Wed Feb  4 06:31:12 2015
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 12:31:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D1E5F4.5030607@itforchange.net>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie> <54D13432.5060909@apc.org> <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com> <54D1E5F4.5030607@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54D20300.20507@acm.org>


On 04-Feb-15 10:27, parminder wrote:
>
>>  So some of us try to work in the relevant multistakeholder spaces
>> and make them better by inter alia attenuating the levels of
>> ‘capture’ by powerful interests.  We win some and more often we lose
>> some, just like in intergovernmental bodies.
>
> As discussed above, we need to work across a range of different
> combinations of MS and gov based decision making structures, and not
> speak of one against the other....

As someone who is as deeply immersed in the multistakeholder world as
possible and who also participates in my government's delegations as a
civil society adviser (just attended the ITU IPP CWG meeting in Geneva),
I agree.

In National debates where sovereignty is difficult to dispute, this
participation is essential and is recognized by participation by many of
the most committed members of civil society and the technical community.

In International debates where states have a special set of roles and
responsibilities that do not, however, extend to soveriegnity over the
Internet we need more civil society representation in our various
government delegations.  I was disappointed at the recent ITU CWG
meetings at how few of the delegations included civil society or
interent technical community participants.  This is one venue where the
accepted form of participation is state delegations only.  In these
cases I believe we need to be there as part of our national delegations
to the extent possible and allowed.  While I would prefer that the ITU
Council and other IGO only organizations open their doors to direct
participation by our civil society associations, in the meantime, we
need to advise from inside state delegations as best we can.

avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/28f935f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Wed Feb  4 06:38:25 2015
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 12:38:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20150204095540.07fb5990@mail.nexus.ie>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
 <54D13432.5060909@apc.org> <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20150204095540.07fb5990@mail.nexus.ie>
Message-ID: <B0BE6E3E-4E4F-4CAB-AEEF-90632C081133@gmail.com>

Hi

Last quick time around for me as I have to pack and go to the airport.

> On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Sean O Siochru <sean at nexus.ie> wrote:
>  
> A 'binding decision' mean different things, especially in the context of the internet. I did say that I would favour a shift in the direction of decisions by (democratic and genuine) consensus among all stakeholders  - and would include some of the areas for decision that you, Bill, mention.  

Which orgs like ICANN do via contracts after extensive inputs from governments as well as stakeholders.
> 
> But even intergovernmental organisations have 'binding' decision undermined by the evolution of technology or maneuvering of others.  e.g.  government can agree what they like between them, but wider dynamics can simply sweep that aside (which is not always a bad thing). The history of telecommunications in the last 30 years is a prime example of that (remember accounting rates and all the other and the scramble to the ITU to stay relevant).

Sure
> 
> Second 'binding' decisions can also mean decisions by monopoly or oligopolies corporations that in effect dictate that way things are for the vast majority of people (Microsoft, google, facebook etc.).

Right and in some such cases public policy may be the appropriate response, in others you may be able to get better results through a non-PP governance approach, depends what we’re talking about.

> On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:33 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> I see no contradiction between what you say and my statements.  Yes, these above are all inter gov decision making systems, because they deal with core economic-social-political aspects of e-commerce. The rest below that you mention deal with the more technical aspects of e-com, and can appropriately have expertise based structures. We indeed agree here. 

Which happens from time to time. Scary and disorienting, huh? :-)
> 
> (1) For those Internet related public policy issues that are of a core social-political nature we need inter gov systems with appropriate stakeholder consultative participation (as in OECD/ EC that you refer to above). 

For me, it depends which core social-political issues we’re talking about.  For example, at a general level privacy is obviously one, but some privacy issues like working out rules for WHOIS and its replacement I’d rather see tackled on a multistakeholder basis with government input.  In contrast broader data protection should be the purview of governments with extensive stakeholder input.  I think the optimal geometry of roles and responsibilities is variable and dynamic, which is why a fixed and static formulation per WSIS is problematic.
> 
> 
> And 
> 
> (2) For technical/ operational decision making, any conflict  or interface with issues of public policy nature will require special rules-based arms-length political oversight systems of some kind. 

Again for me it depends what we’re talking about.  In ICANN I think the GAC has quite enough influence now and often uses it poorly, so I wouldn’t want to see it grown out to some more unilateral form of command and control.
> 
> The question is whether you agree with these two propositions or not.

And the answer is, it depends (sorry).

Cheers

Bill



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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb  4 07:51:44 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:21:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <B0BE6E3E-4E4F-4CAB-AEEF-90632C081133@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie> <54D13432.5060909@apc.org> <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20150204095540.07fb5990@mail.nexus.ie> <B0BE6E3E-4E4F-4CAB-AEEF-90632C081133@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54D215E0.3040100@itforchange.net>


Bill

I see both you and Avri say that some things need inter gov and some MS 
systems, to which I agree. But that brings us to the main point that I 
have been trying to stress; it of course cannot be left to the 
(situational) fancy of people, groups and institutions which issues and 
when should be addressed by one form of governance structure and 
which/when the other. Such a determination obviously must be based on 
some principles , and I have been trying to frame some, admittedly in a 
simple way. We cannot just say that some should be done this way and 
others that - that amounts to venue or forum shopping, a very negative 
feature of any political system, where those who have the most power can 
move between different kinds of forums or forms of governance, as best 
suits them. Which is what happens today in the global IG space. When the 
UN is involved, rich countries say inter gov is bad and this form should 
not be applied to Internet governance, but then they deal similar issues 
in an inter gov manner at forums like OECD and EU/ CoE - and worse, at 
the very opaque plurilateral trade deals.

We need a rules based system, the rules themselves being based on higher 
principles, which of course would be of democracy, to determine what 
kind of global IG architecture is best suited for promoting global 
public interest. However, not much gets spoken about such principles and 
rules which could help us determine different kinds of systems for 
different kind of IG issues - technical to social-political being a key 
spectrum. Most arguments take a stock MS or inter gov view and simply go 
past one another. It is good to explore a more sophisticated larger 
principles based view.

parminder




On Wednesday 04 February 2015 05:08 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Last quick time around for me as I have to pack and go to the airport.
>
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Sean O Siochru <sean at nexus.ie> wrote:
>>   
>> A 'binding decision' mean different things, especially in the context of the internet. I did say that I would favour a shift in the direction of decisions by (democratic and genuine) consensus among all stakeholders  - and would include some of the areas for decision that you, Bill, mention.
> Which orgs like ICANN do via contracts after extensive inputs from governments as well as stakeholders.
>> But even intergovernmental organisations have 'binding' decision undermined by the evolution of technology or maneuvering of others.  e.g.  government can agree what they like between them, but wider dynamics can simply sweep that aside (which is not always a bad thing). The history of telecommunications in the last 30 years is a prime example of that (remember accounting rates and all the other and the scramble to the ITU to stay relevant).
> Sure
>> Second 'binding' decisions can also mean decisions by monopoly or oligopolies corporations that in effect dictate that way things are for the vast majority of people (Microsoft, google, facebook etc.).
> Right and in some such cases public policy may be the appropriate response, in others you may be able to get better results through a non-PP governance approach, depends what we’re talking about.
>
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:33 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>> I see no contradiction between what you say and my statements.  Yes, these above are all inter gov decision making systems, because they deal with core economic-social-political aspects of e-commerce. The rest below that you mention deal with the more technical aspects of e-com, and can appropriately have expertise based structures. We indeed agree here.
> Which happens from time to time. Scary and disorienting, huh? :-)
>> (1) For those Internet related public policy issues that are of a core social-political nature we need inter gov systems with appropriate stakeholder consultative participation (as in OECD/ EC that you refer to above).
> For me, it depends which core social-political issues we’re talking about.  For example, at a general level privacy is obviously one, but some privacy issues like working out rules for WHOIS and its replacement I’d rather see tackled on a multistakeholder basis with government input.  In contrast broader data protection should be the purview of governments with extensive stakeholder input.  I think the optimal geometry of roles and responsibilities is variable and dynamic, which is why a fixed and static formulation per WSIS is problematic.
>>
>> And
>>
>> (2) For technical/ operational decision making, any conflict  or interface with issues of public policy nature will require special rules-based arms-length political oversight systems of some kind.
> Again for me it depends what we’re talking about.  In ICANN I think the GAC has quite enough influence now and often uses it poorly, so I wouldn’t want to see it grown out to some more unilateral form of command and control.
>> The question is whether you agree with these two propositions or not.
> And the answer is, it depends (sorry).
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/c2044a20/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Wed Feb  4 08:40:46 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:40:46 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net>
 <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
 <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
 <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
 <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
 <54D13432.5060909@apc.org> <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com>
 <6.0.3.0.2.20150204095540.07fb5990@mail.nexus.ie>
 <B0BE6E3E-4E4F-4CAB-AEEF-90632C081133@gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642B03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

With regard to rules:

1. after years of discussion around "principles" (APC, OECD, COE, G8, BRICS etc.) we have the Sao Paulo Declaration of Principles of 2014 which delivered what Parminder wants to have. It is not a one-stakeholder document it is a multistakeholder document where each stakeholder is equally happy or unhapppy.

2. We have the WSIS principles from 2005 which are not bad.

3. We have the WGIG Definition, which covers a lot of issues.

4. We have the commitmenet of all UN member states to the Charter of the UN and the UNHR in the Geneva Declaration. The charter of the UN is legally binding under international law. Some interpretations of the seven jus cogens principles can be found in the 1970 declaration. And one can certainly continue to enhance the interpretation of the seven principles in the informaiton age but this needs more politcal compromise among governments.

5. My recommendation is that we should concentrate the limited resources on the implementation of the existing frameworks.


Wolfgang




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Mi 04.02.2015 13:51
An: William Drake; Sean O'Siochru
Cc: Governance; Anriette Esterhuysen; Avri Doria
Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
 

Bill

I see both you and Avri say that some things need inter gov and some MS 
systems, to which I agree. But that brings us to the main point that I 
have been trying to stress; it of course cannot be left to the 
(situational) fancy of people, groups and institutions which issues and 
when should be addressed by one form of governance structure and 
which/when the other. Such a determination obviously must be based on 
some principles , and I have been trying to frame some, admittedly in a 
simple way. We cannot just say that some should be done this way and 
others that - that amounts to venue or forum shopping, a very negative 
feature of any political system, where those who have the most power can 
move between different kinds of forums or forms of governance, as best 
suits them. Which is what happens today in the global IG space. When the 
UN is involved, rich countries say inter gov is bad and this form should 
not be applied to Internet governance, but then they deal similar issues 
in an inter gov manner at forums like OECD and EU/ CoE - and worse, at 
the very opaque plurilateral trade deals.

We need a rules based system, the rules themselves being based on higher 
principles, which of course would be of democracy, to determine what 
kind of global IG architecture is best suited for promoting global 
public interest. However, not much gets spoken about such principles and 
rules which could help us determine different kinds of systems for 
different kind of IG issues - technical to social-political being a key 
spectrum. Most arguments take a stock MS or inter gov view and simply go 
past one another. It is good to explore a more sophisticated larger 
principles based view.

parminder




On Wednesday 04 February 2015 05:08 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Last quick time around for me as I have to pack and go to the airport.
>
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Sean O Siochru <sean at nexus.ie> wrote:
>>   
>> A 'binding decision' mean different things, especially in the context of the internet. I did say that I would favour a shift in the direction of decisions by (democratic and genuine) consensus among all stakeholders  - and would include some of the areas for decision that you, Bill, mention.
> Which orgs like ICANN do via contracts after extensive inputs from governments as well as stakeholders.
>> But even intergovernmental organisations have 'binding' decision undermined by the evolution of technology or maneuvering of others.  e.g.  government can agree what they like between them, but wider dynamics can simply sweep that aside (which is not always a bad thing). The history of telecommunications in the last 30 years is a prime example of that (remember accounting rates and all the other and the scramble to the ITU to stay relevant).
> Sure
>> Second 'binding' decisions can also mean decisions by monopoly or oligopolies corporations that in effect dictate that way things are for the vast majority of people (Microsoft, google, facebook etc.).
> Right and in some such cases public policy may be the appropriate response, in others you may be able to get better results through a non-PP governance approach, depends what we're talking about.
>
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:33 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>> I see no contradiction between what you say and my statements.  Yes, these above are all inter gov decision making systems, because they deal with core economic-social-political aspects of e-commerce. The rest below that you mention deal with the more technical aspects of e-com, and can appropriately have expertise based structures. We indeed agree here.
> Which happens from time to time. Scary and disorienting, huh? :-)
>> (1) For those Internet related public policy issues that are of a core social-political nature we need inter gov systems with appropriate stakeholder consultative participation (as in OECD/ EC that you refer to above).
> For me, it depends which core social-political issues we're talking about.  For example, at a general level privacy is obviously one, but some privacy issues like working out rules for WHOIS and its replacement I'd rather see tackled on a multistakeholder basis with government input.  In contrast broader data protection should be the purview of governments with extensive stakeholder input.  I think the optimal geometry of roles and responsibilities is variable and dynamic, which is why a fixed and static formulation per WSIS is problematic.
>>
>> And
>>
>> (2) For technical/ operational decision making, any conflict  or interface with issues of public policy nature will require special rules-based arms-length political oversight systems of some kind.
> Again for me it depends what we're talking about.  In ICANN I think the GAC has quite enough influence now and often uses it poorly, so I wouldn't want to see it grown out to some more unilateral form of command and control.
>> The question is whether you agree with these two propositions or not.
> And the answer is, it depends (sorry).
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>
>



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

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed Feb  4 13:01:23 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:01:23 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D215E0.3040100@itforchange.net>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie> <54D13432.5060909@apc.org> <B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20150204095540.07fb5990@mail.nexus.ie> <B0BE6E3E-4E4F-4CAB-AEEF-90632C081133@gmail.com> <54D215E0.3040100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54D25E73.7090302@eff.org>

On 4/02/2015 4:51 am, parminder wrote:
> I see both you and Avri say that some things need inter gov and some
> MS systems, to which I agree. But that brings us to the main point
> that I have been trying to stress; it of course cannot be left to the
> (situational) fancy of people, groups and institutions which issues
> and when should be addressed by one form of governance structure and
> which/when the other.

The NETmundial Principles lead to exactly this conclusion when saying
"The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be
interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under
discussion."

You're right that this opens up a separate can of worms as to how the
roles should be divided—eg. is this a decision-taking role for
governments or not.  I tackled this directly in my submission to NETmundial:

> A less simplistic approach requires a case-by-case analysis: whenever
> the coordinating function as described in the Best Bits submission is
> exercised, it should consider not only /whether/ and /where/ policy is
> being developed, but also what the appropriate roles of stakeholders
> are /for that issue/. Factors relevant to that determination include
> agreed high-level global Internet governance principles (if any),
> roles and responsibilities historically exercised in respect of that
> issue, and the governance mechanisms that are likely to be effective
> in dealing with the issue.
>
> To give some possible examples, it may be found that governments are
> entitled to take a leading role in developing global rules on money
> laundering via the Internet, but that they should take a back seat in
> the development of spam filtering standards, and should participate as
> equals with other stakeholders in the development of policy for
> transnational intellectual property enforcement policies.
>
> By engaging in this analysis (which would itself be conducted by a
> multi-stakeholder deliberative body), a more reasoned determination
> can be made of the appropriate roles of governments and other
> stakeholders in a given issue area, than can be had by resorting to
> fixed descriptions of stakeholder roles, or an arbitrary demarcation
> between “public policy” and “technical and operational” issues. The
> result will be that the appropriate role of governments in determining
> any given policy issue can be defined with more particularity than
> simply making a blanket claim of sovereignty.
>
 
It's on the NETmundial site but here is a better formatted version (the
content is identical):

http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-2014-submission-on-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem

-- 
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/20150204/31cf917a/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/20150204/31cf917a/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 bzs at world.std.com  Wed Feb  4 14:05:18 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:05:18 -0500
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D215E0.3040100@itforchange.net>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
	<54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
	<54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net>
	<001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
	<009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
	<54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
	<14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
	<"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
	<6.0.3.0.2.20150202120112.07d60030@mail.nexus.ie>
	<54D13432.5060909@apc.org>
	<B3CE3008-FA18-4EE8-B9EA-348942394008@gmail.com>
	<6.0.3.0.2.20150204095540.07fb5990@mail.nexus.ie>
	<B0BE6E3E-4E4F-4CAB-AEEF-90632C081133@gmail.com>
	<54D215E0.3040100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <21714.28014.244382.708822@world.std.com>


On February 4, 2015 at 18:21 parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) wrote:
 > 
 > We need a rules based system, the rules themselves being based on higher 
 > principles, which of course would be of democracy, to determine what 
 > kind of global IG architecture is best suited for promoting global 
 > public interest. However, not much gets spoken about such principles and 
 > rules which could help us determine different kinds of systems for 
 > different kind of IG issues - technical to social-political being a key 
 > spectrum. Most arguments take a stock MS or inter gov view and simply go 
 > past one another. It is good to explore a more sophisticated larger 
 > principles based view.

I'm not sure why parminder is often responded to like he's a maverick,
perhaps I'm missing some context.

But these are my feelings exactly. A MS or other system has to bind
itself to an express architecture and written corpus of rules and
structure.

To me that seems self-evident.

Or put another way without that we don't really have governance, we
have something more like a star chamber, something in danger of
degenerating into an oligarchy, fascism in the formal sense if I might
risk the loaded term -- I mean an oligarchy of powerful interests
pushing out any effectiveness of the less powerful even if they might
have some role in principle.

I don't even see discussion of transparency principles other than,
sure, who disagrees with transparency, great word. But writing such
things down, specifying standards and processes, and agreeing to them
is much more difficult than high-minded polemics.

-- 
        -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 meier-hahn at hiig.de  Wed Feb  4 15:29:12 2015
From: meier-hahn at hiig.de (Uta Meier-Hahn)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 21:29:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] The Internet Policy Review is calling for submissions
Message-ID: <CE7DF4F9-8689-40E9-8A11-F5015F52E9DA@hiig.de>

Dear all,

The Internet Policy Review is calling for submissions for its next Issue (Volume 4, Issue 2):
http://policyreview.info/authors

The Internet Policy Review is a journal on internet regulation in Europe – peer-reviewed, fast-track and open access. It analyses public regulatory changes as well as private policy developments which are expected to have long lasting impacts on European societies. The journal contributes research to contemporary debates about media, information technology, telecommunications and internet governance.

The journal is open for research papers and scholarly essays of up to 25,000 characters on the following topics:

* Internet infrastructure & Standards
* Business & Trade
* Access & Content
* Copyright & IPR
* Privacy & Security
* Procedures & Governance

Please send your submissions to the editors at editor at hiig.de

About
--------
The Internet Policy Review was established in 2013 as the first peer-reviewed journal that aims to be a resource on internet policy for academics, civil society advocates, entrepreneurs, the media and policy-makers alike. It is published on an ongoing basis by the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society in Berlin. The advisory board currently consists of Professor Jeanette Hofmann (Berlin Social Science Center WZB), Professor Martin Kretschmer (CREATe, Glasgow) and Professor Wolfgang Schulz (Hans Bredow Institute, Hamburg).


Kind regards,
Uta Meier-Hahn, 
Academic Editor | http://policyreview.info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/4046b0b6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 671 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/4046b0b6/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 dave at difference.com.au  Wed Feb  4 20:49:37 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:49:37 +0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <02a001d03ee9$27700820$76501860$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$2!
 7700820$7
 6501860$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au>


On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.
>  

	JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, all this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers. 

	And of course, we now understand ‘self appointed elite’ to be JNC speak for ‘those who choose to show up to open fora’. The JNC attitude, given the number of decisions it makes without even consulting with civil society colleagues, would seem to be that they should do the appointing. I make no apology for not being very keen on that. 
	
	David

> M
>  
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>  
> Hi,
> 
> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.
> 
> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to reach consensus on these issues.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi
>  
> thx. for the discussion.
>  
> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". 
>  
> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>  
> Wolfgang
>  
>  
>  
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>  
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>  
> ...
>  WK is
> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>  
> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
> voice" says concretely!
>  
>  
> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
> state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
> the issue implied by my statement.
>  
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>  
>  
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
> voice.
>  
> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>  
>  
> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
> (you choose your preferred adjective)?
> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
> what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
> how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
> cannot always
> do)
> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
> among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>  
> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
> untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>  
> Mawaki
>  
>  
> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
> than it would claim to be.
>  
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>  
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>  
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150205/4c549f7e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150205/4c549f7e/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 tracey at traceynaughton.com  Wed Feb  4 21:15:38 2015
From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:15:38 +1100
Subject: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54BFBF0D.3000504@itforchange.net> <EBD518CE-0A41-4F63-8AB4-E68F33E602FB@globalgeneva.net> <20150121172634.0fbbd8b5@quill> <54BFE3E9.8080005@itforchange.net> <1421862025.163813248@apps.rackspace.com> <54BFE647.50205@itforchange.net> <20150121190917.3066b781@quill> <54BFEF3A.6080307@alainet.org> <20150121194828.1ce2f9ef@quill> <b6bf4820c07c5c5367db7cfe2f2c89c1.squirrel@webmail.tni.org> <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B2239117-E5E7-426A-B9D5-0DDB6120ACCE@traceynaughton.com>

Hear hear. 

Sent by Tracey Naughton
+61 (0)413 019 707
tracey at traceynaughton.com

On 26 Jan 2015, at 2:14 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Wolfgang,

I think that Parminder gave you a quite extensive answer which I won't even
attempt to repeat...

My own (and personal take) is that the ISF will give prominence to issues
related to the Internet and social justice, something which has been more or
less completely ignored in the context of the IGF and other Internet
Governance processes.

For me, my work in the context of community informatics and my activities in
linking the Community Informatics network to the JNC (and in future (I
expect) to the ISF) is about how the Internet (and ICTs overall) can be used
to promote social justice and how various kinds of interventions may be
needed to overcome the massive amounts of economic (and thus social)
inequalities which are emerging (one can assume causatively) as a more or
less direct result of the interventions of the Internet.

That civil society in Internet Governance has ignored these issues of social
justice and has allowed the various processes concerning Internet Governance
equally to ignore (including dare I say, allowing for and enabling the high
degree of selectivity in the choices of which Human Rights to promote and
which to avoid), is to my mind scandalous and a serious dereliction of their
responsibilities to the point where it is laughable and a fairly serious
category mistake to refer to most of the individuals and groups involved as
civil society at all.

So, to answer your question my own activities in relation to the ISF will be
to ensure that questions of social justice and economic and social
inequality in the context of the Internet, of Internet governance, and of
governance of and with the Internet are front and centre in our discussions.

Best,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 4:59 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: AW: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum

Hi Michael,

I asked already Parminder how the ISF is linked to the IGF and I did not get
an answer. Can you reply? 

Wolfgang




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein
Gesendet: So 25.01.2015 13:19
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum

Coverage of the ISF in an Indian daily

M

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/455369/towards-democratic-internet-gover
nance.html


Towards democratic Internet governance


*    1 min read 
*     

Shruthi H M, Bengaluru, Jan 24, 2015, DHNS:

The Internet might have pervaded the common man's life but its governance
still remains in the hands of a few corporate giants. To counter this, civil
society organisations propose democratic Internet governance. 

Though Google's Eric Schmidt predicts the "disappearance of Internet into
the background", a group of organisations have set out to bring to fore
voices that have remained in the background in spite of the Internet's all
pervasive nature.As the World Economic Forum (WEF) 2015 is in progress in
Davos (Jan 21-24), civil society organisations have come together to create
a global 'Internet Social Forum' countering the WEF's NETmundial initiative
for Internet governance. The organisations aim to create an Internet space
governed in public interest. 

Bengaluru-based organisation IT for Change will be an active part of this
global forum, along with five other Indian organisations: Society For
Knowledge Commons, All India Peoples Science Network, Free Software Movement
of India, SLFC.in and Digital Empowrment Foundation. 

The Internet Social Forum will consist of civil society organisations from
across the globe who believe that Internet governance should not be limited
to the vested interests of corporate giants. Their endeavour is to put in
place a "bottom's up" approach, where grassroots groups can have their say
in regulating Internet space.

Civil organisations feel that the WEF's global internet policy making and
governance initiative the 'NETmundial', restricts itself to the voices of
the global elite. The concept of WEF itself has been countered by the "World
Social Forum" and the Internet Social Forum draws inspiration from it. In
fact, the "preparatory process" of the forum is likely to be held in March
2015 in Tunis, during the World Social Forum meet.

When one searches for something on the Internet, the most popular links
related to the subject appear at the top of the list. 

However, more often links that appear first are not guided by popularity but
by the money invested by interested parties to ensure they are displayed on
top. In this regard, the Internet Social Forum will fight for "Net
neutrality". 

IT For Change Executive Director Parminder Jeet Singh said, "In its current
form, internet governance has not yet become a people's movement. The
Internet is increasingly controlled by corporates." 

Community owned broadband, data ownership, limits to copyright and including
rural communities in the dialogue process are some of the issues that the
forum seeks to address.

Rishab Bailey, Director (legal), Society For Knowledge Commons, added that
such an initiative was significant as, at present, a lot of thought is going
into setting up institutions for Internet governance. "We have to ensure a
representative and democratic Internet governance. Internet is a global
construct and it touches all our lives. As of now there are no concrete
mechanisms to deal with issues pertaining to Internet governance. We have to
make sure that Internet governance is a true bottoms up approach." 





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

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

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

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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 00:54:26 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 21:54:26 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7 6501860$@gmai l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>

Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I would guess
for the JNC. 

 

I, at least, believe in the “sovereign right” of the people not of “nations”
(or governments or states
 

 

In some instances this “sovereign right” is able to be exercised through the
democratic processes governing the actions of “nations” in other instances
(dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.) this is not possible.  This
latter case doesn’t remove the sovereign right of the people nor is it
transferred in these instances to the “nation”, rather these sovereign
rights await appropriate means/modalities for a democratic execution. 

 

And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one can start
talking simply about “elites” as the governing structures of these
multi-stakeholder processes 
 Of course, these folks are “self-selected” in
their governance role while their being “elites” derives from their position
of power in various economic, political and social structures or as
courtiers to those who do.

 

M

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

 

 

On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:





Errr
 yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in
and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the
governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.

 

 

            JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic
nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, all
this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers. 

 

            And of course, we now understand ‘self appointed elite’ to be
JNC speak for ‘those who choose to show up to open fora’. The JNC attitude,
given the number of decisions it makes without even consulting with civil
society colleagues, would seem to be that they should do the appointing. I
make no apology for not being very keen on that. 

            

            David





M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

 

Hi,

While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those
who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy
issues, it seems highly unlikely.

On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other
issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be
able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a
direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as
a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to
reach consensus on these issues.

avri




On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:

Hi
 
thx. for the discussion.
 
The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up
open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge
around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS
WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF
and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was
inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be
liberal in what you accept". 
 
If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach
rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with
"one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based
on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as
human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital
divide etc. ..
 
Wolfgang
 
 
 
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
 
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow  <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
<nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
 

...
 WK is
calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
 
So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
voice" says concretely!
 

 
I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
the issue implied by my statement.
 
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow  <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
<nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
 

 
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
Mawaki Chango  <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
 

In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
voice.

 
In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
 

 
So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
(you choose your preferred adjective)?
Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
cannot always
do)
and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
 
In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
 
Mawaki
 
 

In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
than it would claim to be.
 
Greetings,
Norbert
 
 

 
 






____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
      <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
      <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
 
For all other list information and functions, see:
      <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
      <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/
 
Translate this email:  <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
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/20150204/70501a62/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu Feb  5 10:11:33 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 23:11:33 +0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$2!
 7700820$7
  6501860$@gmai l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>


On 5 Feb 2015, at 1:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I would guess for the JNC.
>  
> I, at least, believe in the “sovereign right” of the people not of “nations” (or governments or states…
	
	The JNC position at WGEC was to retain article 35 of the Tunis Agenda, which states
	• Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues
	And as far as I am aware nothing has changed. 

	Now, Michael, I have absolutely no issue with you dissenting from the JNC position, but the JNC position certainly appears to be that they support the sovereign right of states over internet policy. 


> In some instances this “sovereign right” is able to be exercised through the democratic processes governing the actions of “nations” in other instances (dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.) this is not possible.  This latter case doesn’t remove the sovereign right of the people nor is it transferred in these instances to the “nation”, rather these sovereign rights await appropriate means/modalities for a democratic execution.

	Which is a reasonable position (though I feel it translates very poorly to any sort of intergovernmental process), it just does not appear to be the JNC position. The JNC position as of WGEC was to support the sovereign right of states regardless of their democratic status. And JNC explicitly took this position without support from other civil society participants, but with the support of Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

> And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one can start talking simply about “elites” as the governing structures of these multi-stakeholder processes …

	Do you think the civil society representatives on NMI are elites? In what sense? 

> Of course, these folks are “self-selected” in their governance role while their being “elites” derives from their position of power in various economic, political and social structures or as courtiers to those who do.
	
	It is odd indeed how much JNC representatives accuse everyone else of being ‘self-selected’ as a criticism. JNC seems to have their share of members who represent organisations with a very small membership that exist for no purpose other than to be vehicles for Internet governance participation. 	

	Regards

		Davids

> M
>  
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>  
>  
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.
>  
>  
>             JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, all this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers. 
>  
>             And of course, we now understand ‘self appointed elite’ to be JNC speak for ‘those who choose to show up to open fora’. The JNC attitude, given the number of decisions it makes without even consulting with civil society colleagues, would seem to be that they should do the appointing. I make no apology for not being very keen on that. 
>            
>             David
> 
> 
> M
>  
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>  
> Hi,
> 
> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.
> 
> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to reach consensus on these issues.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi
>  
> thx. for the discussion.
>  
> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". 
>  
> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>  
> Wolfgang
>  
>  
>  
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>  
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>  
> ...
>  WK is
> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>  
> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
> voice" says concretely!
>  
>  
> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
> state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
> the issue implied by my statement.
>  
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>  
>  
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
> voice.
>  
> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>  
>  
> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
> (you choose your preferred adjective)?
> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
> what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
> how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
> cannot always
> do)
> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
> among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>  
> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
> untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>  
> Mawaki
>  
>  
> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
> than it would claim to be.
>  
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>  
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>  
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> 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 --------------
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/20150205/9875aac1/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 gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 13:06:37 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:06:37 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com>
 <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
 <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>

Good observation David... the issue is that when we were drafting the Delhi
Declaration it never occurred to any of us that there would be the
full-throated attack on democracy that is now evident as the underlying
basis and intent of multi-stakeholderism.  Certainly not one that would come
from within Civil Society.  

So it never occurred to us that we needed to spell out what seemed to us to
be the quite self-evident principle that democracy was the basis of all
sovereignty, that national sovereignty derived its legitimacy from it being
based on popular democracy and the absence of popular democracy doesn't mean
that the principle fails it simply means that it hasn't as yet been (fully)
realized. 

In the real world of course, where decisions are being made, the question
becomes as you are posing it--do we abandon the democratic principle even
though it is not fully realized and is in many cases only aspirational or do
we accept that ultimately global decision making will be a mix of democratic
values, the national articulation of democratic values and aspirations and
national representations of national interests many or most of (the latter
of) which pay only nominal attention to the democratic aspirations of their
people.  That is do we abandon democracy in favour of governance by elites?

There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some form
of democratic and representative structures in place.  The degree to which
these are truly democratic and representative (and transparent and
accountable) varies of course enormously but in many instances they are all
that is available and they do provide the on-going opportunity for realizing
the aspirations for popular sovereignty in these countries as others.

The intent that you seem to be arguing for is to abandon "democratic"
structures and aspirations in favour of self-directed governance by elites
with no effective measures for representivity, transparency or
accountability in that governance structure.

It seems to me that it is you who should be providing an explanation and
rationale for the principles of non-democracy and the anti-democratic
aspirations and values of multi-stakeholder decision making which go against
several thousand years of human history and the values and aspirations of
the vast and overwhelming majority of the global population.

Finally, I fail to see how the organizational form of the JNC as a free
association of its members and supporters or of its individual or
organizational supporters is of any relevance in this or any similar
discussion.  If folks of like mind choose to get together to advocate for a
particular set of norms and values how does that differ from any other free
association in a democratic structure.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:12 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum


On 5 Feb 2015, at 1:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I would
guess for the JNC.
>  
> I, at least, believe in the “sovereign right” of the people not of 
> “nations” (or governments or states

	
	The JNC position at WGEC was to retain article 35 of the Tunis
Agenda, which states
	• Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for
international Internet-related public policy issues
	And as far as I am aware nothing has changed. 

	Now, Michael, I have absolutely no issue with you dissenting from
the JNC position, but the JNC position certainly appears to be that they
support the sovereign right of states over internet policy. 


> In some instances this “sovereign right” is able to be exercised through
the democratic processes governing the actions of “nations” in other
instances (dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.) this is not
possible.  This latter case doesn’t remove the sovereign right of the people
nor is it transferred in these instances to the “nation”, rather these
sovereign rights await appropriate means/modalities for a democratic
execution.

	Which is a reasonable position (though I feel it translates very
poorly to any sort of intergovernmental process), it just does not appear to
be the JNC position. The JNC position as of WGEC was to support the
sovereign right of states regardless of their democratic status. And JNC
explicitly took this position without support from other civil society
participants, but with the support of Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

> And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one can 
> start talking simply about “elites” as the governing structures of 
> these multi-stakeholder processes 


	Do you think the civil society representatives on NMI are elites? In
what sense? 

> Of course, these folks are “self-selected” in their governance role while
their being “elites” derives from their position of power in various
economic, political and social structures or as courtiers to those who do.
	
	It is odd indeed how much JNC representatives accuse everyone else
of being ‘self-selected’ as a criticism. JNC seems to have their share of
members who represent organisations with a very small membership that exist
for no purpose other than to be vehicles for Internet governance
participation. 	

	Regards

		Davids

> M
>  
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>  
>  
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Errr
 yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in
and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the
governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.
>  
>  
>             JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic
nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, all
this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers. 
>  
>             And of course, we now understand ‘self appointed elite’ to be
JNC speak for ‘those who choose to show up to open fora’. The JNC attitude,
given the number of decisions it makes without even consulting with civil
society colleagues, would seem to be that they should do the appointing. I
make no apology for not being very keen on that. 
>            
>             David
> 
> 
> M
>  
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>  
> Hi,
> 
> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those
who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy
issues, it seems highly unlikely.
> 
> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other
issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be
able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a
direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as
a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to
reach consensus on these issues.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi
>  
> thx. for the discussion.
>  
> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up
open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge
around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS
WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF
and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was
inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be
liberal in what you accept". 
>  
> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak
seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one
voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around
basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge,
brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>  
> Wolfgang
>  
>  
>  
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki 
> Chango
> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>  
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>  
> ...
>  WK is
> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>  
> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one 
> voice" says concretely!
>  
>  
> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me 
> to state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, 
> you
> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just 
> wasn't the issue implied by my statement.
>  
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>  
>  
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one 
> voice.
>  
> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that 
> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being 
> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right 
> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion 
> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>  
>  
> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united 
> voice (you choose your preferred adjective)?
> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems 
> to be what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the 
> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part 
> is
> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no 
> matter how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and 
> they certainly cannot always
> do)
> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and 
> trust among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>  
> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for 
> IGC to untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>  
> Mawaki
>  
>  
> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent 
> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a 
> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive 
> than it would claim to be.
>  
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>  
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>  
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



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

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

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

From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Thu Feb  5 15:08:53 2015
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:08:53 -0500
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$2!
 7700820$7
   6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu>

Indeed.  Quite, indeed.


The current re-enlivening of actual dialog on the IGC list, more-or-less with some comity, has been predicated on a quest for 'common ground.'  Nothing could be more of the essence.

Pointedly antagonistic posts, such as those from our young friend at the .au address, of course offer to take this list straight back to its utterly deprecated state, instead.


Michael's, below, to my ear, goes straight to what is sine qua non, if this list, and its discussion, have any prospect actually to explore potential common ground.

To wit:


There is, and has been, an entirely fundamental divide, separating two camps within the civil society gathered here.  Without putting too fine a point on it, on the one side are those who see multi-stakeholderism as a complete solution; on the other side, democracy is the starting point.

Any steps forward toward more common ground, it is pretty clear, must quite directly address this fundamental divide.

While it is natural, perhaps, to move down the stack from these first choices, in the attempt to find common territory, discussions of tactics, even strategy, will find themselves entangled in the basic difference. Until that difference is dealt forthrightly.

As Michael does, so nicely, below, for the democracy viewpoint.

Cherry-picking across a few recent posts, the problem has already been illustrated all too well, I believe.

The discussion of ICANN has, at the very best, quite glossed over its capture by a few, narrow commercial interests. This would, of course, be seen as entirely undemocratic, in those quarters.

Or, the discussion of the Brazil event leaves out some of the more unfortunate outcomes.

Or, the discussion of participation in NMI  will turn on which of the two "first choices."

Or – going quite directly to the first choices – an esteemed member, responding to the choice, indicates I believe that, "It depends."  When therein lies the fundamental divide. Until which bridged, in some fashion, leaves the rest ambiguous.

Again – finding such common ground could not be more of the essence.  All in my view of course,

David


On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:06 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good observation David... the issue is that when we were drafting the Delhi
> Declaration it never occurred to any of us that there would be the
> full-throated attack on democracy that is now evident as the underlying
> basis and intent of multi-stakeholderism.  Certainly not one that would come
> from within Civil Society.  
> 
> So it never occurred to us that we needed to spell out what seemed to us to
> be the quite self-evident principle that democracy was the basis of all
> sovereignty, that national sovereignty derived its legitimacy from it being
> based on popular democracy and the absence of popular democracy doesn't mean
> that the principle fails it simply means that it hasn't as yet been (fully)
> realized. 
> 
> In the real world of course, where decisions are being made, the question
> becomes as you are posing it--do we abandon the democratic principle even
> though it is not fully realized and is in many cases only aspirational or do
> we accept that ultimately global decision making will be a mix of democratic
> values, the national articulation of democratic values and aspirations and
> national representations of national interests many or most of (the latter
> of) which pay only nominal attention to the democratic aspirations of their
> people.  That is do we abandon democracy in favour of governance by elites?
> 
> There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some form
> of democratic and representative structures in place.  The degree to which
> these are truly democratic and representative (and transparent and
> accountable) varies of course enormously but in many instances they are all
> that is available and they do provide the on-going opportunity for realizing
> the aspirations for popular sovereignty in these countries as others.
> 
> The intent that you seem to be arguing for is to abandon "democratic"
> structures and aspirations in favour of self-directed governance by elites
> with no effective measures for representivity, transparency or
> accountability in that governance structure.
> 
> It seems to me that it is you who should be providing an explanation and
> rationale for the principles of non-democracy and the anti-democratic
> aspirations and values of multi-stakeholder decision making which go against
> several thousand years of human history and the values and aspirations of
> the vast and overwhelming majority of the global population.
> 
> Finally, I fail to see how the organizational form of the JNC as a free
> association of its members and supporters or of its individual or
> organizational supporters is of any relevance in this or any similar
> discussion.  If folks of like mind choose to get together to advocate for a
> particular set of norms and values how does that differ from any other free
> association in a democratic structure.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:12 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> 
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 1:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I would
> guess for the JNC.
>> 
>> I, at least, believe in the “sovereign right” of the people not of 
>> “nations” (or governments or states…
> 	
> 	The JNC position at WGEC was to retain article 35 of the Tunis
> Agenda, which states
> 	• Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for
> international Internet-related public policy issues
> 	And as far as I am aware nothing has changed. 
> 
> 	Now, Michael, I have absolutely no issue with you dissenting from
> the JNC position, but the JNC position certainly appears to be that they
> support the sovereign right of states over internet policy. 
> 
> 
>> In some instances this “sovereign right” is able to be exercised through
> the democratic processes governing the actions of “nations” in other
> instances (dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.) this is not
> possible.  This latter case doesn’t remove the sovereign right of the people
> nor is it transferred in these instances to the “nation”, rather these
> sovereign rights await appropriate means/modalities for a democratic
> execution.
> 
> 	Which is a reasonable position (though I feel it translates very
> poorly to any sort of intergovernmental process), it just does not appear to
> be the JNC position. The JNC position as of WGEC was to support the
> sovereign right of states regardless of their democratic status. And JNC
> explicitly took this position without support from other civil society
> participants, but with the support of Saudi Arabia and Iran. 
> 
>> And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one can 
>> start talking simply about “elites” as the governing structures of 
>> these multi-stakeholder processes …
> 
> 	Do you think the civil society representatives on NMI are elites? In
> what sense? 
> 
>> Of course, these folks are “self-selected” in their governance role while
> their being “elites” derives from their position of power in various
> economic, political and social structures or as courtiers to those who do.
> 	
> 	It is odd indeed how much JNC representatives accuse everyone else
> of being ‘self-selected’ as a criticism. JNC seems to have their share of
> members who represent organisations with a very small membership that exist
> for no purpose other than to be vehicles for Internet governance
> participation. 	
> 
> 	Regards
> 
> 		Davids
> 
>> M
>> 
>> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
>> Cc: Avri Doria
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> 
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in
> and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the
> governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.
>> 
>> 
>>            JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic
> nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, all
> this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers. 
>> 
>>            And of course, we now understand ‘self appointed elite’ to be
> JNC speak for ‘those who choose to show up to open fora’. The JNC attitude,
> given the number of decisions it makes without even consulting with civil
> society colleagues, would seem to be that they should do the appointing. I
> make no apology for not being very keen on that. 
>> 
>>            David
>> 
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
> voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those
> who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy
> issues, it seems highly unlikely.
>> 
>> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other
> issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be
> able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a
> direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as
> a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to
> reach consensus on these issues.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> thx. for the discussion.
>> 
>> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
> outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up
> open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge
> around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS
> WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF
> and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was
> inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be
> liberal in what you accept". 
>> 
>> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
> reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak
> seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one
> voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around
> basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge,
> brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki 
>> Chango
>> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
>> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> WK is
>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>> 
>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one 
>> voice" says concretely!
>> 
>> 
>> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
>> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me 
>> to state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, 
>> you
>> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just 
>> wasn't the issue implied by my statement.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one 
>> voice.
>> 
>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that 
>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being 
>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right 
>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion 
>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>> 
>> 
>> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united 
>> voice (you choose your preferred adjective)?
>> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems 
>> to be what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the 
>> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part 
>> is
>> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no 
>> matter how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and 
>> they certainly cannot always
>> do)
>> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and 
>> trust among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>> 
>> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for 
>> IGC to untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>> 
>> Mawaki
>> 
>> 
>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent 
>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a 
>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive 
>> than it would claim to be.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Feb  5 16:41:44 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:41:44 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org>

On 5/02/2015 12:08 pm, David Allen wrote:
> There is, and has been, an entirely fundamental divide, separating two camps within the civil society gathered here.  Without putting too fine a point on it, on the one side are those who see multi-stakeholderism as a complete solution; on the other side, democracy is the starting point.

If anyone will raise their hand and agree with that framing of the
former perspective as encapsulating their views, then I guess you have
framed it fairly.  If not (anyone?) then can I suggest a more balanced
framing of that perspective: those who advocate for the development of
multi-stakeholder models of democratic representation in global Internet
governance in which governments do not a priori have the lead role
(though in appropriate cases they may).

-- 
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/20150205/46bfe51c/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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Thu Feb  5 16:52:13 2015
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:52:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <5!
 4D3E398.8
 030603@eff.org>
Message-ID: <3E91736B-CF75-4AD6-8759-E5D8186D7A49@post.harvard.edu>

This could - if suitably framed and presented - be part of a genuine attempt to search out the essential differences between the two sides.  Those essential differences are the necessary starting point.

Ultimately, to be basis - then - for seeking whether there is any common ground.  On the basic bits, which determine whether there can be commonality 'down the stack.'

If.

David


On Feb 5, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On 5/02/2015 12:08 pm, David Allen wrote:
>> There is, and has been, an entirely fundamental divide, separating two camps within the civil society gathered here.  Without putting too fine a point on it, on the one side are those who see multi-stakeholderism as a complete solution; on the other side, democracy is the starting point.
> 
> If anyone will raise their hand and agree with that framing of the
> former perspective as encapsulating their views, then I guess you have
> framed it fairly.  If not (anyone?) then can I suggest a more balanced
> framing of that perspective: those who advocate for the development of
> multi-stakeholder models of democratic representation in global Internet
> governance in which governments do not a priori have the lead role
> (though in appropriate cases they may).
> 
> -- 
> 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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 17:55:35 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 18:55:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54D3F4E7.1060209@gmail.com>


Dear Michael, dear friends,

this statement from Michael produced my disagreement.

"So it never occurred to us that we needed to spell out what seemed to 
us to be the quite self-evident principle that democracy was the basis 
of all sovereignty..."

Never have sovereignty to do with democracy. This concept comes from the 
french absolutism (Jean Bodin) and means absolute freedom for any type 
of decision. The parallelism We see in the way how government 
institutions and private companies customize the "Internet" in their 
favor. They can do this because they control the technical resources.

"There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some 
form of democratic and representative structures in place..."

I ask me, Michael, on what planet you live. Democratic and 
representative structures in one combination? On this planet there exist 
no one democratic state system. And this is very simple. Democratic is 
always direct. And all states need the representation. This is the 
basis, why never we can find a "democratic" state.

Yes, we need the sovereignty in the construction of our real InterNet. 
And this sovereignty is always based on our independence in technology. 
Without our technical capacity, we can only ask our absolute ruler.

And parminder formulate it very correct.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


Am 05/02/2015 um 02:06 p.m. schrieb michael gurstein:
> Good observation David... the issue is that when we were drafting the Delhi
> Declaration it never occurred to any of us that there would be the
> full-throated attack on democracy that is now evident as the underlying
> basis and intent of multi-stakeholderism.  Certainly not one that would come
> from within Civil Society.
>
> So it never occurred to us that we needed to spell out what seemed to us to
> be the quite self-evident principle that democracy was the basis of all
> sovereignty, that national sovereignty derived its legitimacy from it being
> based on popular democracy and the absence of popular democracy doesn't mean
> that the principle fails it simply means that it hasn't as yet been (fully)
> realized.
>
> In the real world of course, where decisions are being made, the question
> becomes as you are posing it--do we abandon the democratic principle even
> though it is not fully realized and is in many cases only aspirational or do
> we accept that ultimately global decision making will be a mix of democratic
> values, the national articulation of democratic values and aspirations and
> national representations of national interests many or most of (the latter
> of) which pay only nominal attention to the democratic aspirations of their
> people.  That is do we abandon democracy in favour of governance by elites?
>
> There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some form
> of democratic and representative structures in place.  The degree to which
> these are truly democratic and representative (and transparent and
> accountable) varies of course enormously but in many instances they are all
> that is available and they do provide the on-going opportunity for realizing
> the aspirations for popular sovereignty in these countries as others.
>
> The intent that you seem to be arguing for is to abandon "democratic"
> structures and aspirations in favour of self-directed governance by elites
> with no effective measures for representivity, transparency or
> accountability in that governance structure.
>
> It seems to me that it is you who should be providing an explanation and
> rationale for the principles of non-democracy and the anti-democratic
> aspirations and values of multi-stakeholder decision making which go against
> several thousand years of human history and the values and aspirations of
> the vast and overwhelming majority of the global population.
>
> Finally, I fail to see how the organizational form of the JNC as a free
> association of its members and supporters or of its individual or
> organizational supporters is of any relevance in this or any similar
> discussion.  If folks of like mind choose to get together to advocate for a
> particular set of norms and values how does that differ from any other free
> association in a democratic structure.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:12 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 1:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I would
> guess for the JNC.
>>
>> I, at least, believe in the “sovereign right” of the people not of
>> “nations” (or governments or states…
> 	
> 	The JNC position at WGEC was to retain article 35 of the Tunis
> Agenda, which states
> 	• Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for
> international Internet-related public policy issues
> 	And as far as I am aware nothing has changed.
>
> 	Now, Michael, I have absolutely no issue with you dissenting from
> the JNC position, but the JNC position certainly appears to be that they
> support the sovereign right of states over internet policy.
>
>
>> In some instances this “sovereign right” is able to be exercised through
> the democratic processes governing the actions of “nations” in other
> instances (dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.) this is not
> possible.  This latter case doesn’t remove the sovereign right of the people
> nor is it transferred in these instances to the “nation”, rather these
> sovereign rights await appropriate means/modalities for a democratic
> execution.
>
> 	Which is a reasonable position (though I feel it translates very
> poorly to any sort of intergovernmental process), it just does not appear to
> be the JNC position. The JNC position as of WGEC was to support the
> sovereign right of states regardless of their democratic status. And JNC
> explicitly took this position without support from other civil society
> participants, but with the support of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
>
>> And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one can
>> start talking simply about “elites” as the governing structures of
>> these multi-stakeholder processes …
>
> 	Do you think the civil society representatives on NMI are elites? In
> what sense?
>
>> Of course, these folks are “self-selected” in their governance role while
> their being “elites” derives from their position of power in various
> economic, political and social structures or as courtiers to those who do.
> 	
> 	It is odd indeed how much JNC representatives accuse everyone else
> of being ‘self-selected’ as a criticism. JNC seems to have their share of
> members who represent organisations with a very small membership that exist
> for no purpose other than to be vehicles for Internet governance
> participation. 	
>
> 	Regards
>
> 		Davids
>
>> M
>>
>> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
>> Cc: Avri Doria
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>
>>
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in
> and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the
> governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.
>>
>>
>>              JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic
> nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, all
> this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers.
>>
>>              And of course, we now understand ‘self appointed elite’ to be
> JNC speak for ‘those who choose to show up to open fora’. The JNC attitude,
> given the number of decisions it makes without even consulting with civil
> society colleagues, would seem to be that they should do the appointing. I
> make no apology for not being very keen on that.
>>
>>              David
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
> voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those
> who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy
> issues, it seems highly unlikely.
>>
>> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other
> issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be
> able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a
> direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as
> a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to
> reach consensus on these issues.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> thx. for the discussion.
>>
>> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
> outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up
> open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge
> around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS
> WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF
> and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was
> inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be
> liberal in what you accept".
>>
>> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
> reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak
> seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one
> voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around
> basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge,
> brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki
>> Chango
>> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
>> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>   WK is
>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>>
>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
>> voice" says concretely!
>>
>>
>> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
>> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me
>> to state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough,
>> you
>> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just
>> wasn't the issue implied by my statement.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
>> voice.
>>
>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>>
>>
>> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united
>> voice (you choose your preferred adjective)?
>> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems
>> to be what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
>> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part
>> is
>> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no
>> matter how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and
>> they certainly cannot always
>> do)
>> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and
>> trust among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>>
>> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for
>> IGC to untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
>> than it would claim to be.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From jfcallo at ciencitec.com  Thu Feb  5 18:06:24 2015
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (=?utf-8?q?Jos=C3=A9_Callo_Romero?=)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 18:06:24 -0500
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D3F4E7.1060209@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7
 6501860$@gma
 i
 l.com>
 <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au>
 <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
 <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>
 <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
 <54D3F4E7.1060209@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150205230624.6013073.50415.3985@ciencitec.com>



Enviado desde mi smartphone BlackBerry 10.
  Mensaje original  
De: willi uebelherr
Enviado: jueves, 5 de febrero de 2015 18:05
Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Responder a: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Asunto: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum


Dear Michael, dear friends,

this statement from Michael produced my disagreement.

"So it never occurred to us that we needed to spell out what seemed to 
us to be the quite self-evident principle that democracy was the basis 
of all sovereignty..."

Never have sovereignty to do with democracy. This concept comes from the 
french absolutism (Jean Bodin) and means absolute freedom for any type 
of decision. The parallelism We see in the way how government 
institutions and private companies customize the "Internet" in their 
favor. They can do this because they control the technical resources.

"There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some 
form of democratic and representative structures in place..."

I ask me, Michael, on what planet you live. Democratic and 
representative structures in one combination? On this planet there exist 
no one democratic state system. And this is very simple. Democratic is 
always direct. And all states need the representation. This is the 
basis, why never we can find a "democratic" state.

Yes, we need the sovereignty in the construction of our real InterNet. 
And this sovereignty is always based on our independence in technology. 
Without our technical capacity, we can only ask our absolute ruler.

And parminder formulate it very correct.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


Am 05/02/2015 um 02:06 p.m. schrieb michael gurstein:
> Good observation David... the issue is that when we were drafting the Delhi
> Declaration it never occurred to any of us that there would be the
> full-throated attack on democracy that is now evident as the underlying
> basis and intent of multi-stakeholderism. Certainly not one that would come
> from within Civil Society.
>
> So it never occurred to us that we needed to spell out what seemed to us to
> be the quite self-evident principle that democracy was the basis of all
> sovereignty, that national sovereignty derived its legitimacy from it being
> based on popular democracy and the absence of popular democracy doesn't mean
> that the principle fails it simply means that it hasn't as yet been (fully)
> realized.
>
> In the real world of course, where decisions are being made, the question
> becomes as you are posing it--do we abandon the democratic principle even
> though it is not fully realized and is in many cases only aspirational or do
> we accept that ultimately global decision making will be a mix of democratic
> values, the national articulation of democratic values and aspirations and
> national representations of national interests many or most of (the latter
> of) which pay only nominal attention to the democratic aspirations of their
> people. That is do we abandon democracy in favour of governance by elites?
>
> There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some form
> of democratic and representative structures in place. The degree to which
> these are truly democratic and representative (and transparent and
> accountable) varies of course enormously but in many instances they are all
> that is available and they do provide the on-going opportunity for realizing
> the aspirations for popular sovereignty in these countries as others.
>
> The intent that you seem to be arguing for is to abandon "democratic"
> structures and aspirations in favour of self-directed governance by elites
> with no effective measures for representivity, transparency or
> accountability in that governance structure.
>
> It seems to me that it is you who should be providing an explanation and
> rationale for the principles of non-democracy and the anti-democratic
> aspirations and values of multi-stakeholder decision making which go against
> several thousand years of human history and the values and aspirations of
> the vast and overwhelming majority of the global population.
>
> Finally, I fail to see how the organizational form of the JNC as a free
> association of its members and supporters or of its individual or
> organizational supporters is of any relevance in this or any similar
> discussion. If folks of like mind choose to get together to advocate for a
> particular set of norms and values how does that differ from any other free
> association in a democratic structure.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:12 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 1:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I would
> guess for the JNC.
>>
>> I, at least, believe in the “sovereign right” of the people not of
>> “nations” (or governments or states…
> 
> The JNC position at WGEC was to retain article 35 of the Tunis
> Agenda, which states
> • Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for
> international Internet-related public policy issues
> And as far as I am aware nothing has changed.
>
> Now, Michael, I have absolutely no issue with you dissenting from
> the JNC position, but the JNC position certainly appears to be that they
> support the sovereign right of states over internet policy.
>
>
>> In some instances this “sovereign right” is able to be exercised through
> the democratic processes governing the actions of “nations” in other
> instances (dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.) this is not
> possible. This latter case doesn’t remove the sovereign right of the people
> nor is it transferred in these instances to the “nation”, rather these
> sovereign rights await appropriate means/modalities for a democratic
> execution.
>
> Which is a reasonable position (though I feel it translates very
> poorly to any sort of intergovernmental process), it just does not appear to
> be the JNC position. The JNC position as of WGEC was to support the
> sovereign right of states regardless of their democratic status. And JNC
> explicitly took this position without support from other civil society
> participants, but with the support of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
>
>> And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one can
>> start talking simply about “elites” as the governing structures of
>> these multi-stakeholder processes …
>
> Do you think the civil society representatives on NMI are elites? In
> what sense?
>
>> Of course, these folks are “self-selected” in their governance role while
> their being “elites” derives from their position of power in various
> economic, political and social structures or as courtiers to those who do.
> 
> It is odd indeed how much JNC representatives accuse everyone else
> of being ‘self-selected’ as a criticism. JNC seems to have their share of
> members who represent organisations with a very small membership that exist
> for no purpose other than to be vehicles for Internet governance
> participation. 
>
> Regards
>
> Davids
>
>> M
>>
>> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
>> Cc: Avri Doria
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>
>>
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in
> and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the
> governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.
>>
>>
>> JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic
> nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, all
> this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers.
>>
>> And of course, we now understand ‘self appointed elite’ to be
> JNC speak for ‘those who choose to show up to open fora’. The JNC attitude,
> given the number of decisions it makes without even consulting with civil
> society colleagues, would seem to be that they should do the appointing. I
> make no apology for not being very keen on that.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
> voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those
> who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy
> issues, it seems highly unlikely.
>>
>> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> fundamental, that is unlikely. I think IGC should focus on those other
> issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be
> able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a
> direction the various camps can all accept. While I accept using the IGC as
> a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to
> reach consensus on these issues.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> thx. for the discussion.
>>
>> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
> outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up
> open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge
> around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS
> WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF
> and others. This was workable on the basis of a principle which was
> inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be
> liberal in what you accept".
>>
>> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
> reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak
> seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+ process, knowing that this "one
> voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around
> basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge,
> brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki
>> Chango
>> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
>> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> WK is
>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>>
>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
>> voice" says concretely!
>>
>>
>> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
>> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me
>> to state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough,
>> you
>> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just
>> wasn't the issue implied by my statement.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
>> voice.
>>
>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>>
>>
>> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united
>> voice (you choose your preferred adjective)?
>> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems
>> to be what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
>> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part
>> is
>> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no
>> matter how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and
>> they certainly cannot always
>> do)
>> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and
>> trust among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>>
>> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for
>> IGC to untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
>> than it would claim to be.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 18:20:55 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:20:55 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com>
 <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
 <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
 <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org
 >
Message-ID: <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com>

Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the following questions in one or another form).  

Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some detail on what is meant by:
a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of the governed.

b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory democracy"

c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori have the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead role, how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.

I don't mean these questions argumentatively but rather these are some of the questions that need to be answered before any kind of discussion of these kinds can go forward.  (Simply "answering" them through the creation of "facts" in reality a la the NMI only makes the issues more fraught and difficult to address in reality although perhaps not in theory since the actors and actions involved tosses the theoretical underpinnings into stark relief.)

BTW, it would be good if the evidently closed loop of self-reflexive IG think tanks etc. --the WEF/NMI, the Bildt Commission or whatever it's called, ICANN's various internal too-ing and fro-ings could use some of their expense account zillions to actually address some of these rather fundamental issues in a way that actually recognized the internal controversies and external oppositions.

M 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 1:42 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On 5/02/2015 12:08 pm, David Allen wrote:
> There is, and has been, an entirely fundamental divide, separating two camps within the civil society gathered here.  Without putting too fine a point on it, on the one side are those who see multi-stakeholderism as a complete solution; on the other side, democracy is the starting point.

If anyone will raise their hand and agree with that framing of the former perspective as encapsulating their views, then I guess you have framed it fairly.  If not (anyone?) then can I suggest a more balanced framing of that perspective: those who advocate for the development of multi-stakeholder models of democratic representation in global Internet governance in which governments do not a priori have the lead role (though in appropriate cases they may).

--
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

From jfcallo at ciencitec.com  Thu Feb  5 18:23:11 2015
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (=?utf-8?q?Jos=C3=A9_Callo_Romero?=)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 18:23:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <20150205230624.6013073.50415.3985@ciencitec.com>
References:  <20150205230624.6013073.50415.3985@ciencitec.com>
Message-ID: <20150205232311.6013073.79667.3988@ciencitec.com>



Enviado desde mi smartphone BlackBerry 10.
  Mensaje original  
De: willi uebelherr
Enviado: jueves, 5 de febrero de 2015 18:05
Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Responder a: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Asunto: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum


Dear Michael, dear friends,

this statement from Michael produced my disagreement.

"So it never occurred to us that we needed to spell out what seemed to 
us to be the quite self-evident principle that democracy was the basis 
of all sovereignty..."

Never have sovereignty to do with democracy. This concept comes from the 
french absolutism (Jean Bodin) and means absolute freedom for any type 
of decision. The parallelism We see in the way how government 
institutions and private companies customize the "Internet" in their 
favor. They can do this because they control the technical resources.

"There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some 
form of democratic and representative structures in place..."

I ask me, Michael, on what planet you live. Democratic and 
representative structures in one combination? On this planet there exist 
no one democratic state system. And this is very simple. Democratic is 
always direct. And all states need the representation. This is the 
basis, why never we can find a "democratic" state.

Yes, we need the sovereignty in the construction of our real InterNet. 
And this sovereignty is always based on our independence in technology. 
Without our technical capacity, we can only ask our absolute ruler.

And parminder formulate it very correct.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


Am 05/02/2015 um 02:06 p.m. schrieb michael gurstein:
> Good observation David... the issue is that when we were drafting the Delhi
> Declaration it never occurred to any of us that there would be the
> full-throated attack on democracy that is now evident as the underlying
> basis and intent of multi-stakeholderism. Certainly not one that would come
> from within Civil Society.
>
> So it never occurred to us that we needed to spell out what seemed to us to
> be the quite self-evident principle that democracy was the basis of all
> sovereignty, that national sovereignty derived its legitimacy from it being
> based on popular democracy and the absence of popular democracy doesn't mean
> that the principle fails it simply means that it hasn't as yet been (fully)
> realized.
>
> In the real world of course, where decisions are being made, the question
> becomes as you are posing it--do we abandon the democratic principle even
> though it is not fully realized and is in many cases only aspirational or do
> we accept that ultimately global decision making will be a mix of democratic
> values, the national articulation of democratic values and aspirations and
> national representations of national interests many or most of (the latter
> of) which pay only nominal attention to the democratic aspirations of their
> people. That is do we abandon democracy in favour of governance by elites?
>
> There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some form
> of democratic and representative structures in place. The degree to which
> these are truly democratic and representative (and transparent and
> accountable) varies of course enormously but in many instances they are all
> that is available and they do provide the on-going opportunity for realizing
> the aspirations for popular sovereignty in these countries as others.
>
> The intent that you seem to be arguing for is to abandon "democratic"
> structures and aspirations in favour of self-directed governance by elites
> with no effective measures for representivity, transparency or
> accountability in that governance structure.
>
> It seems to me that it is you who should be providing an explanation and
> rationale for the principles of non-democracy and the anti-democratic
> aspirations and values of multi-stakeholder decision making which go against
> several thousand years of human history and the values and aspirations of
> the vast and overwhelming majority of the global population.
>
> Finally, I fail to see how the organizational form of the JNC as a free
> association of its members and supporters or of its individual or
> organizational supporters is of any relevance in this or any similar
> discussion. If folks of like mind choose to get together to advocate for a
> particular set of norms and values how does that differ from any other free
> association in a democratic structure.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:12 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 1:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I would
> guess for the JNC.
>>
>> I, at least, believe in the “sovereign right” of the people not of
>> “nations” (or governments or states…
> 
> The JNC position at WGEC was to retain article 35 of the Tunis
> Agenda, which states
> • Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for
> international Internet-related public policy issues
> And as far as I am aware nothing has changed.
>
> Now, Michael, I have absolutely no issue with you dissenting from
> the JNC position, but the JNC position certainly appears to be that they
> support the sovereign right of states over internet policy.
>
>
>> In some instances this “sovereign right” is able to be exercised through
> the democratic processes governing the actions of “nations” in other
> instances (dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.) this is not
> possible. This latter case doesn’t remove the sovereign right of the people
> nor is it transferred in these instances to the “nation”, rather these
> sovereign rights await appropriate means/modalities for a democratic
> execution.
>
> Which is a reasonable position (though I feel it translates very
> poorly to any sort of intergovernmental process), it just does not appear to
> be the JNC position. The JNC position as of WGEC was to support the
> sovereign right of states regardless of their democratic status. And JNC
> explicitly took this position without support from other civil society
> participants, but with the support of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
>
>> And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one can
>> start talking simply about “elites” as the governing structures of
>> these multi-stakeholder processes …
>
> Do you think the civil society representatives on NMI are elites? In
> what sense?
>
>> Of course, these folks are “self-selected” in their governance role while
> their being “elites” derives from their position of power in various
> economic, political and social structures or as courtiers to those who do.
> 
> It is odd indeed how much JNC representatives accuse everyone else
> of being ‘self-selected’ as a criticism. JNC seems to have their share of
> members who represent organisations with a very small membership that exist
> for no purpose other than to be vehicles for Internet governance
> participation. 
>
> Regards
>
> Davids
>
>> M
>>
>> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
>> Cc: Avri Doria
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>
>>
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in
> and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the
> governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.
>>
>>
>> JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic
> nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, all
> this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers.
>>
>> And of course, we now understand ‘self appointed elite’ to be
> JNC speak for ‘those who choose to show up to open fora’. The JNC attitude,
> given the number of decisions it makes without even consulting with civil
> society colleagues, would seem to be that they should do the appointing. I
> make no apology for not being very keen on that.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
> voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those
> who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy
> issues, it seems highly unlikely.
>>
>> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> fundamental, that is unlikely. I think IGC should focus on those other
> issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be
> able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a
> direction the various camps can all accept. While I accept using the IGC as
> a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to
> reach consensus on these issues.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> thx. for the discussion.
>>
>> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
> outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up
> open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge
> around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS
> WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF
> and others. This was workable on the basis of a principle which was
> inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be
> liberal in what you accept".
>>
>> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
> reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak
> seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+ process, knowing that this "one
> voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around
> basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge,
> brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki
>> Chango
>> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
>> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> WK is
>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>>
>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
>> voice" says concretely!
>>
>>
>> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
>> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me
>> to state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough,
>> you
>> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just
>> wasn't the issue implied by my statement.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
>> voice.
>>
>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>>
>>
>> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united
>> voice (you choose your preferred adjective)?
>> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems
>> to be what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
>> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part
>> is
>> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no
>> matter how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and
>> they certainly cannot always
>> do)
>> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and
>> trust among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>>
>> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for
>> IGC to untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
>> than it would claim to be.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


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

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

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

From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 19:14:32 2015
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 01:14:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <3E91736B-CF75-4AD6-8759-E5D8186D7A49@post.harvard.edu>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com>
 <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
 <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
 <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org>
 <3E91736B-CF75-4AD6-8759-E5D8186D7A49@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <F88BB667-9216-4901-84D5-E22693C652B3@gmail.com>

For once, the way David is introducing the fundamental divide is taking us away from the usual caricatural presentation (multi-stakeholderists pro status quo  against the governmentalists pro-statists including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba..). I thank David for that.

Amusingly when Jeremy suggests a more balanced framing, he immediately defines only one "camp", the other one being lost in his re-framing - just teasing Jeremy! So maybe this alternative is simply not balanced at all, or is it just a way to define the perfect ideal camp (with no more opposition). A perfect world indeed.

More to the point, I believe that the idea of trying to find common ground is probably interesting, if not a desperate attempt.

The context has changed:

Because we deal with public policy issues at national and transnational levels, because the asymmetry, the many lies, the refusal of clear definitions, the money corrupting people, the systematic denial of a true common vocabulary, all of that has taken the IG debate from a techno-paradise behind closed doors, based on rough consensus  supported and initially funded by commercial and military "fans" waiting for their bonanza, to nowhere. That is precisely the failure of civil society, of the bestbits, 1Nets, NMIsts, Montevideoists... Because of all of that, today one thing is clear: we are in the middle of a classical political fight. A transnational one. A dimension that gave so far the advantage to the well organized and already globalized digital rubber barons.

Lost are the days when a few would limit the IG horizon and debate, when someone with an "opinion" was a criminal attempting to kill the wonderful wonder. Everyone had to agree with... Someone in the list recently wrote that that the Internet was a network of networks, nothing else,. Wow. I think someone has to take him away from his prehistorical thinking. There is no more Internet Governance. Only a political fight. And because of that reality, when Wolfgang, one master of the status quo's storytelling - remember the un-governable Internet due to its decentralized nature but with its heavy centralized profits, advantages, unfairness - when he comes with a proposal  of a booklet about IG, as an editor myself I can't see what this can deliver, except a collection of useless statements daring at each other with no intent for a true and honest debate to land on a common ground.

The ISF is to some degree, the natural outcome of this long lasting dead-end, when after years of misrepresentation, misguidance, twisting anyone thought or words into a nightmare. Rrespect and trust have come a low point with little to deliver to the citizens. 

Civil society has one central role, which should be in my opinion, dedicated to public interest. The status-quo was never a pro-civil society project. Multistakeholderism was never a program, maybe a screen of smoke. If someone wants to reinvent the usual players in a society, and explain us that because you put everyone in a room, on an equal footing basis, for profit and non profit are the same, that private and public sector are the same, then someone is lying. In a lobbyist mind this might be true, but when talking to a US farmer that can't access the neighboring local broadband because a private company holds a legal gun on it, or when an Indonesian citizen has no idea of what broadband means because the infrastructure is not there, these citizens are not very different from an African or a Bolivian without access to the Internet. Because we have these citizens in mind, civil society should join force together, reject the fundings of the Googles, Carl Bild, Freedom House, WEF and other room service providers of the dominants (anyone wants to tell us about its funding sources?), and fight independently for its true mandate. Then respect could unite civil society again. Probably ISF is part of that most necessary transformation. And we have to admit that one civil society page is closed.

Common ground is where you'll find the public interest. Let's meet there if not too late.



JC 

PS: Greek traditional parties imploded, replace by a new party but Greece has also gained a nazi party, third party in its parliament. Indeed citizens can become really upset sometime. And not just in the Arab world, or in the faraway lands. We'll see if Russian money will be or not the buoy for Greece. There is some Russian money left out there, including in Cyprus.

if it would ever deliver anything, 
Le 5 févr. 2015 à 22:52, David Allen a écrit :

> This could - if suitably framed and presented - be part of a genuine attempt to search out the essential differences between the two sides.  Those essential differences are the necessary starting point.
> 
> Ultimately, to be basis - then - for seeking whether there is any common ground.  On the basic bits, which determine whether there can be commonality 'down the stack.'
> 
> If.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/02/2015 12:08 pm, David Allen wrote:
>>> There is, and has been, an entirely fundamental divide, separating two camps within the civil society gathered here.  Without putting too fine a point on it, on the one side are those who see multi-stakeholderism as a complete solution; on the other side, democracy is the starting point.
>> 
>> If anyone will raise their hand and agree with that framing of the
>> former perspective as encapsulating their views, then I guess you have
>> framed it fairly.  If not (anyone?) then can I suggest a more balanced
>> framing of that perspective: those who advocate for the development of
>> multi-stakeholder models of democratic representation in global Internet
>> governance in which governments do not a priori have the lead role
>> (though in appropriate cases they may).
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Feb  5 19:17:12 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:17:12 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org > <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54D40808.8040000@eff.org>

On 5/02/2015 3:20 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the following questions in one or another form).

Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that
anything I could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to reply
at length which I don't.  So just some quick points.

> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some detail on what is meant by:
> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of the governed.

Many of the fundamentals are covered in the NETmundial principles, but
the operationalisation of these principles remains a work in progress. 
For ICANN that work has been ongoing 17 years, for the IGF it has been
10 years... but the Westminster system took about 300 years to develop
to where it is, so your demand for a comprehensive blueprint now seems a
bit unreasonable.  Having said that, a number of us including me have
put forward some quite specific proposals, which I can point you to. 
The NETmundial meeting itself also shows what becomes possible where the
political will is there.

> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory democracy"

There are reams of literature on this, have you read any of it?  Or for
an overview, see
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-internet-governance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3. 
For the next IGF there is a proposal (on which I'm a advisor) to hold a
deliberative poll.  It doesn't mean that everyone in the world has to be
involved, it means that about 300 people who cover all significantly
affected perspectives should be involved.

> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori have the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead role, how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.

I posted about this yesterday in response to Parminder.

-- 
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/20150205/da878b37/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Thu Feb  5 21:31:00 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 03:31:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] [nncoalition] FOLLOW WIRED Twitter
 Facebook RSS FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net
 Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <20150205034910.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.c649c57dc4.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
References: <20150205034910.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.c649c57dc4.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYoH87mfROwxkzDQaWv5P1bnG323+XjUdgpvk5c3koRx+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

It's interesting to observe that the term "network neutrality" does not
appear anywhere in the FCC text (see link below). The emphasis is on "rules
to preserve and protect the open Internet as a place for innovation and
free expression".

A second observation is the lack of any mention of the ICANN monopoly on
generic Top Level Domains. Perhaps this matter is off legal FCC turf. But
it cannot be viewed as a way "to preserve and protect the open Internet as
a place for innovation and free expression". As the USG is adamant to keep
control of its temple guardian, a possible avenue is attacking this
monopoly in EU or WTO.

Louis

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <LB at lucabelli.net>
Date: Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:49 AM
Subject: RE: [bestbits] [nncoalition] FOLLOW WIRED Twitter Facebook RSS FCC
Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
To: Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>, "
nncoalition at mailman.edri.org" <nncoalition at mailman.edri.org>, "
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt" <
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

Hi all,

FYI

Fact Sheet: Chairman Wheeler Proposes New Rules for Protecting the Open
Internet

*http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0204/DOC-331869A1.pdf
<http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0204/DOC-331869A1.pdf>*

Best,
Luca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150206/bbdba73b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Fri Feb  6 00:40:00 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 13:40:00 +0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <5!
 4D3E398.8
 030603@eff.org > <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C7C046E1-8E30-4393-B388-47D682E0811F@difference.com.au>


On 6 Feb 2015, at 7:20 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the following questions in one or another form).
> 
> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some detail on what is meant by:
> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of the governed.

	I think you have the process backwards somewhat, Michael. For example, there is a really large, complex process looking very seriously at accountability mechanisms within ICANN right now. There are cross community working groups, multiple work streams, proposals and discussion flying around, and it is deeply intertwined with the IANA transition process. A lot of really significant accountability changes are being canvassed, such external review processes, mechanisms to remove board members, etc. For those civil society groups engaged with ICANN, this is occupying a great deal of our time. You are asking to fully understand the accountability mechanisms within complex organisations before you commit to becoming involved. I think if you wish to have good accountability within those structure, become involved and fight for it.

https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability

	And information about the accountability mechanisms that already exist is not hard to find at all. Want to know about accountability mechanisms within ICANN?
Start here, spend a few hours reading, you’ll know more than most ICANN participants
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/accountability-en
The ATRT reports are perhaps not the best place to start for an outsider, but they are well worth a read, with a LOT of information about ICANN accountability and transparency mechanisms and how they work in practice, from independent review processes that include both genuine outsiders and knowledgable ICANN insiders (Avri was on the second ATRT, and did a lot of great work).

	I don’t think there is a fundamental disagreement on the principles of accountability between JNC and groups like NCSG that are engaged with ICANN, but there is a profound gulf on tactics. For example, the JNC position on ICANN seems to be ‘we are unsure that ICANN is sufficiently accountable, so we will refuse to engage’. The end result is that most JNC comments on accountability within ICANN etc are not listened to, not because they are wrong in principle, but because they are misinformed, lacking the knowledge that comes from direct experience and relying on third hand reports. I recall last year, for example, conversations with you that made it clear that you had no idea at all that direct participants in ICANN policy processes had to lodge a statement of interest.
	In NCSG you won’t find us saying many good things about ICANN accountability either, but the difference is that, having engaged directly with its accountability mechanisms and discovered first hand their problems, we are now (given the leverage of the IANA transition process) in a good position to push to change those accountability mechanisms for the better. We know what works, we know what doesn’t, we know how mechanisms will be subverted or weakened. Accountability isn’t a slogan, it is a battle front, and one on which we currently have a good chance to make some very solid gains.
	Which isn’t to say that I feel that being the internal opposition is the only viable strategy. Rather, strategically we should have both an internal opposition and an external opposition, and they should work together. At the moment, JNC seems to spend a large amount of its effort on attacking civil society colleagues for acting as the internal opposition.

> 
> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory democracy”

	This is actually an area that deserves significant discussion. Is the model of democracy we want aggregative (in which case certainly multi-stakeholderism fails, but we have no good model for transnational aggregative democracy, nor is one likely to emerge IMO - and democracy should be more than the tyranny of the majority) or deliberative (in which case multi-stakeholderism can be seen as profoundly democratic, as it forces deliberation, but multi-stakeholderism models currently do a poor job of dealing with situations where deliberation fails to achieve consensus)? Is democracy about representing the views of the majority, or protecting the voice and rights of minorities? Is democracy about the voice of the people, or is it about justice for all?
	These are not new debates. They are among the oldest of political debates, and we will continue to have them. There is no one defining right answer. Civil society should have a range of views and priorities. I admit that as I represent a civil rights organisation within most IG processes, my focus is on protection of rights for all, but that is my individual focus.

	My primary policy difference with JNC is simply that JNCs dialogue about democracy vs multistakeholderism pretty much entirely ignores the problem of anti-democratic governments. I literally cannot recall a single comment from JNC advocates that addresses the issue.

> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori have the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead role

	The whole point of multi-stakeholderism is that no one sector has a lead role.

> , how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.

	These are really good questions. I do not think there is a single simple answer. There ARE areas in which governments should have the primary public policy role. But there are areas in which they should not. There do need to be accountability mechanisms, but such mechanisms do need to evolve to deal with the issues that arise from specific processes. How do we broaden inclusivity of processes, especially ones (such as very technical processes) that have a high barrier to entry.
	And the question of how we deal with inclusivity/representativity in the absence of anchored democratic processes in another issue that is important, but that is a big problem without a simple solution. Because transnational processes are always conducted in the absence of anchored democratic processes as long as there are major states that are not democratic. As I said above, my biggest policy disagreement with the JNC is how often it conflates ‘states’ and ‘democratic states’, such as the rhetoric supporting its push to retain article 35. It is naive and hypocritical not to up front address the issue that any time a JNC position supports a primary role for government, it strengthens authoritarian anti-democratic governments as well as democratically elected ones - and that is leaving aside the ‘neoliberal’ corporatist subversion of the international trade position of most democratically elected governments, which you’d think would be a JNC concern really.

> I don't mean these questions argumentatively but rather these are some of the questions that need to be answered before any kind of discussion of these kinds can go forward.  (Simply "answering" them through the creation of "facts" in reality a la the NMI only makes the issues more fraught and difficult to address in reality although perhaps not in theory since the actors and actions involved tosses the theoretical underpinnings into stark relief.)

	I have some sympathy, though I think that we practically have to deal with processes that are happening as well. I would certainly support dialogue on issues such as how to address risks to democracy in mutti-stakeholder fora, how to promote democratic mechanisms in transnational fora that include powerful anti-democratic nations, etc. But I would argue that your frequent use of terms like democracy and accountability in cheap sloganeering is detrimental to that dialogue.

> 
> BTW, it would be good if the evidently closed loop of self-reflexive IG think tanks etc. --the WEF/NMI, the Bildt Commission or whatever it's called, ICANN's various internal too-ing and fro-ings could use some of their expense account zillions to actually address some of these rather fundamental issues in a way that actually recognized the internal controversies and external oppositions.

	I can assure you that while some recent ICANN think tank exercises may have been exercises in internal group-think, the IANA and Accountability processes (for example) very much do recognise the internal controversies and external oppositions. And many other ICANN processes very much recognise the internal controversies.

	Regards

		David
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 1:42 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> On 5/02/2015 12:08 pm, David Allen wrote:
>> There is, and has been, an entirely fundamental divide, separating two camps within the civil society gathered here.  Without putting too fine a point on it, on the one side are those who see multi-stakeholderism as a complete solution; on the other side, democracy is the starting point.
> 
> If anyone will raise their hand and agree with that framing of the former perspective as encapsulating their views, then I guess you have framed it fairly.  If not (anyone?) then can I suggest a more balanced framing of that perspective: those who advocate for the development of multi-stakeholder models of democratic representation in global Internet governance in which governments do not a priori have the lead role (though in appropriate cases they may).
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150206/61f13100/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150206/61f13100/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 dave at difference.com.au  Fri Feb  6 00:50:59 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 13:50:59 +0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D3F4E7.1060209@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <54D3F4E7.1060209@gmail!
 .com>
Message-ID: <8D2A3A1B-994C-4B08-82AD-F5DE370287AB@difference.com.au>


On 6 Feb 2015, at 6:55 am, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Dear Michael, dear friends,
> 
> this statement from Michael produced my disagreement.
> 
> "So it never occurred to us that we needed to spell out what seemed to us to be the quite self-evident principle that democracy was the basis of all sovereignty…"

	I agree, this seems like a principle of wishful thinking that ignores the existence of sovereign undemocratic nations. Perhaps democracy should be the basis of sovereignty, but that certainly isn’t the case in the world we live in.

	A very interesting academic read on the idea of sovereignty is Stephen Krasner’s book Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy.

> Never have sovereignty to do with democracy. This concept comes from the french absolutism (Jean Bodin) and means absolute freedom for any type of decision. The parallelism We see in the way how government institutions and private companies customize the "Internet" in their favor. They can do this because they control the technical resources.
> 
> "There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some form of democratic and representative structures in place..."
> 
> I ask me, Michael, on what planet you live.

	Apparently one in which China, Iran, KSA, etc do not have sovereignty. The JNC pro-state position does make a lot more sense in a world in which those governments do not exist.

	Regards

		David
-------------- 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/20150206/eb549a38/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 dave at difference.com.au  Fri Feb  6 01:39:17 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 14:39:17 +0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$2!
 7700820$7
   6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <410A482C-CC2E-4ABC-AF9F-C0D21358B1F5@difference.com.au>


On 6 Feb 2015, at 2:06 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good observation David... the issue is that when we were drafting the Delhi
> Declaration it never occurred to any of us that there would be the
> full-throated attack on democracy that is now evident as the underlying
> basis and intent of multi-stakeholderism.  Certainly not one that would come
> from within Civil Society.

	I do tend the think that the idea that there is a full-throated attack on democracy from within civil society to be rather hyperbolic.

> In the real world of course, where decisions are being made, the question
> becomes as you are posing it--do we abandon the democratic principle even
> though it is not fully realized and is in many cases only aspirational or do
> we accept that ultimately global decision making will be a mix of democratic
> values, the national articulation of democratic values and aspirations and
> national representations of national interests many or most of (the latter
> of) which pay only nominal attention to the democratic aspirations of their
> people.  That is do we abandon democracy in favour of governance by elites?

	My answer would start by saying that you have set up a false dichotomy in your final sentence.
	Setting democracy and deliberative multi-stakeholder consensus based decision making as in opposition is unhelpful. Instead, ask how can we make multi-stakeholder processes more democratic. That isn’t trivial. For a start, there is no one simple idea of what it means to be democratic).
	And what does it mean to have governance by elites? There are significant practical issues to overcome - many internet issues are such that anyone who has a thorough understanding may be considered part of a technical elite. And of course there are social mechanisms by which representative democracy tends to create its own elites.

> There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some form
> of democratic and representative structures in place.  The degree to which
> these are truly democratic and representative (and transparent and
> accountable) varies of course enormously but in many instances they are all
> that is available and they do provide the on-going opportunity for realizing
> the aspirations for popular sovereignty in these countries as others.

	A good question then would be: why do you consistently treat even massively constrained, subverted/corrupted government processes that proclaim themselves democratic as somehow having more legitimacy than open, transparent multi-stakeholder processes?
	Plenty of nations use the term democracy, and it is astute of you to notice that maybe some of them are not really terribly democratic (i.e. the DPRK, despite having democratic right there in the name, really isn’t all that democratic). I realise that, say, sometimes an authoritarian absolute monarchy that bans elections, political parties, and free speech, but allows some of its citizens to contend for the right to advise it, is sometimes ‘all that is available’, should you live in the KSA. But this reasoning - that because their profoundly anti-democratic government is the only thing available, supporting their primary role in public policy is somehow supporting democracy, seems extremely stretched. Black is white, war is peace, an authoritarian absolute monarchy allowing a minority to stand for election to an advisory council is democracy?

> The intent that you seem to be arguing for is to abandon "democratic"
> structures and aspirations in favour of self-directed governance by elites
> with no effective measures for representivity, transparency or
> accountability in that governance structure.

	Not at all. My argument is that a very practical method of working towards more democratic structures in Internet governance is to work towards increased representativity, transparency, and accountability within the multi-stakeholder governance structures we have.
	Frankly, I think we have a fair better chance of pushing transparency and accountability and representativity within ICANN than we do of pushing them within existing state based mechanisms for transnational decision making.
	I mean, ICANN has its problems, but contrast it with mechanisms like the TPPA or TTIP, and it doesn’t look so bad - and I think we can force transparency and accountability on ICANN far more easily than we can on the massively subverted international trade processes (and democratic nations are among the worst offenders here).

> It seems to me that it is you who should be providing an explanation and
> rationale for the principles of non-democracy and the anti-democratic
> aspirations and values of multi-stakeholder decision making which go against
> several thousand years of human history and the values and aspirations of
> the vast and overwhelming majority of the global population.

	Oh, please do tell me how multi-stakeholderism is less democratic than the processes of Athenian city-states or Roman Emperors and other governance mechanisms of the last few thousand years.
	Do you really think that not wanting to entrench the primary role of government in Internet governance is against the aspirations of the citizens of China, because they really want their governments censorship policies to be more represented on the global stage? That the people on India are desperate to have government calls for national level censorship given a stronger voice over the many domestic civil society groups that oppose it?
	Hyberbolic rhetoric doesn’t help, but you really do seem to enjoy it.

> 
> Finally, I fail to see how the organizational form of the JNC as a free
> association of its members and supporters or of its individual or
> organizational supporters is of any relevance in this or any similar
> discussion.

	Do you apply the same criteria to your other civil society colleagues? I’m certainly over being regularly accused of being part of a ‘self selected elite’. My organisation has a membership of several hundred people, and I face regular re-election. As part of that elected role, I participate in civil society processes within ICANN and elsewhere. Am I part of a self-selected elite?

>  If folks of like mind choose to get together to advocate for a
> particular set of norms and values how does that differ from any other free
> association in a democratic structure.

	It just contrasts with your frequent rhetorical attacks on your colleagues.
	Regards
		David

> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:12 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> 
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 1:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I would
> guess for the JNC.
>> 
>> I, at least, believe in the “sovereign right” of the people not of
>> “nations” (or governments or states…
> 
> 	The JNC position at WGEC was to retain article 35 of the Tunis
> Agenda, which states
> 	• Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for
> international Internet-related public policy issues
> 	And as far as I am aware nothing has changed.
> 
> 	Now, Michael, I have absolutely no issue with you dissenting from
> the JNC position, but the JNC position certainly appears to be that they
> support the sovereign right of states over internet policy.
> 
> 
>> In some instances this “sovereign right” is able to be exercised through
> the democratic processes governing the actions of “nations” in other
> instances (dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.) this is not
> possible.  This latter case doesn’t remove the sovereign right of the people
> nor is it transferred in these instances to the “nation”, rather these
> sovereign rights await appropriate means/modalities for a democratic
> execution.
> 
> 	Which is a reasonable position (though I feel it translates very
> poorly to any sort of intergovernmental process), it just does not appear to
> be the JNC position. The JNC position as of WGEC was to support the
> sovereign right of states regardless of their democratic status. And JNC
> explicitly took this position without support from other civil society
> participants, but with the support of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
> 
>> And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one can
>> start talking simply about “elites” as the governing structures of
>> these multi-stakeholder processes …
> 
> 	Do you think the civil society representatives on NMI are elites? In
> what sense?
> 
>> Of course, these folks are “self-selected” in their governance role while
> their being “elites” derives from their position of power in various
> economic, political and social structures or as courtiers to those who do.
> 
> 	It is odd indeed how much JNC representatives accuse everyone else
> of being ‘self-selected’ as a criticism. JNC seems to have their share of
> members who represent organisations with a very small membership that exist
> for no purpose other than to be vehicles for Internet governance
> participation.
> 
> 	Regards
> 
> 		Davids
> 
>> M
>> 
>> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
>> Cc: Avri Doria
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> 
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in
> and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the
> governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.
>> 
>> 
>>            JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic
> nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, all
> this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers.
>> 
>>            And of course, we now understand ‘self appointed elite’ to be
> JNC speak for ‘those who choose to show up to open fora’. The JNC attitude,
> given the number of decisions it makes without even consulting with civil
> society colleagues, would seem to be that they should do the appointing. I
> make no apology for not being very keen on that.
>> 
>>            David
>> 
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
> voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those
> who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy
> issues, it seems highly unlikely.
>> 
>> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other
> issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be
> able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a
> direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as
> a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to
> reach consensus on these issues.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> thx. for the discussion.
>> 
>> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
> outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up
> open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge
> around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS
> WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF
> and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was
> inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be
> liberal in what you accept".
>> 
>> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
> reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak
> seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one
> voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around
> basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge,
> brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki
>> Chango
>> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
>> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> WK is
>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>> 
>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
>> voice" says concretely!
>> 
>> 
>> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
>> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me
>> to state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough,
>> you
>> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just
>> wasn't the issue implied by my statement.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
>> voice.
>> 
>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>> 
>> 
>> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united
>> voice (you choose your preferred adjective)?
>> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems
>> to be what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
>> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part
>> is
>> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no
>> matter how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and
>> they certainly cannot always
>> do)
>> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and
>> trust among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>> 
>> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for
>> IGC to untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>> 
>> Mawaki
>> 
>> 
>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
>> than it would claim to be.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
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/20150206/43441946/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 gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Feb  6 02:30:04 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 23:30:04 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D40808.8040000@eff.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org > <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <54D40808.8040000@eff.org>
Message-ID: <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com>

Hmmm...

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:17 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On 5/02/2015 3:20 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental
questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer for,
for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the
following questions in one or another form).

Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that anything I
could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to reply at length which
I don't.  So just some quick points.

[MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered" with
similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't point to
anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and we'll have a good
set of MS models to show you...; circular and self-reflexive
arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D. theses; that sort of
thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000 years of building popular
democracy and hardly sufficient (hopefully) to persuade us to all stampede
towards governance by unelected elites unless you are already committed in
that direction...

> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some
detail on what is meant by:
> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are
the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the
normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to
commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give up
these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of
interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of the
governed.

Many of the fundamentals are covered in the NETmundial principles, but the
operationalisation of these principles remains a work in progress. 
For ICANN that work has been ongoing 17 years, for the IGF it has been
10 years... but the Westminster system took about 300 years to develop to
where it is, so your demand for a comprehensive blueprint now seems a bit
unreasonable.  Having said that, a number of us including me have put
forward some quite specific proposals, which I can point you to. 
The NETmundial meeting itself also shows what becomes possible where the
political will is there.

[MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model to which
you are asking the world to entrust the electronic infrastructure which
increasingly underlies all aspects of daily life--as "a work in progress";
as the "work" of a thoroughly bloated out of control agency living very high
off the hog on their accountable Internet tax revenue whose governance model
on seems to be to spend a zillion dollars ferrying anyone who seems to have
an interest to every possible exotic 5 star hotel location anywhere in the
world, wining and dining this thoroughly compromised army into stupefaction
and then calling that governance; as a bunch of half cooked proposals
squirreled away in inaccessible jargon and inaccessible blogs; and as a one
two day event organized to respond to an Internet calamity and then hijacked
to support the interests of precisely those who sponsored the calamity...
hmmm....

> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what
exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and
please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory
democracy"

There are reams of literature on this, have you read any of it?  Or for an
overview, see
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-internet-gov
ernance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3. 
For the next IGF there is a proposal (on which I'm a advisor) to hold a
deliberative poll.  It doesn't mean that everyone in the world has to be
involved, it means that about 300 people who cover all significantly
affected perspectives should be involved.

[MG>] I (re)read the blog post you pointed to and what I got was a rather
repetitive set of circular definitions defining MSist "democracy" as being
"how MSism is currently operating".  So MSism is fundamentally democratic
because MSism is how democracy is defined (according to the blogpost) ... If
it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then by (my) definition it must
be a dog because I want it to be...

> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori have
the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead
role, how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in
which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead
role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes
of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is
representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't
matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.

I posted about this yesterday in response to Parminder.

 [MG>] Which as I recall was less an answer than another circular
argument... According to your post we resolve issues of accountability and
jurisdiction as between governments and multistakeholder processes by
developing additional multistakeholder processes to address these issues and
presumably we resolve issues for governing those processes by developing
further MS processes and turtles on turtles as far as the eye can see (with
nary a reference to a democratic process or democratic accountability
anywhere up or down the line...

Quite frankly I'm still waiting for something on MSism with some substance
and depth to discuss.  One of the reasons for the degeneration in the level
of debate is that the debate is so conceptually lopsided.  Without something
serious to discuss concerning what is meant by MSism and the MS model in
broader Internet Governance all that is possible is the verbal ping pong
which everyone is so bored with.

M
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

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: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5798 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150205/2c533db7/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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Feb  6 03:31:06 2015
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 02:31:06 -0600
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
	<007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
	<009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
	<54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
	<14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
	<F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au>
	<00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
	<FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>
	<040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
	<A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu>
	<061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com>
	<54D40808.8040000@eff.org>
	<07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxg4Xd+=ZGCatFoQeJvppNtD-s+ne8x8jDqfs_ixxzwSeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Michael,

Must be brief as I am in an airport on my way to one of those 5 star hotels now.

Study the RIRs (or IETF) as models of BUTOC (bottom-up, open,
transparent, consensus based) MSism.

They have 3+ decades of functioning experience to guide you.



On 2/6/15, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:17 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>
> On 5/02/2015 3:20 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
>> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental
> questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer
> for,
> for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the
> following questions in one or another form).
>
> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that anything
> I
> could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to reply at length
> which
> I don't.  So just some quick points.
>
> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered" with
> similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't point to
> anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and we'll have a good
> set of MS models to show you...; circular and self-reflexive
> arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D. theses; that sort of
> thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000 years of building popular
> democracy and hardly sufficient (hopefully) to persuade us to all stampede
> towards governance by unelected elites unless you are already committed in
> that direction...
>
>> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some
> detail on what is meant by:
>> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are
> the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the
> normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to
> commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give
> up
> these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of
> interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of
> the
> governed.
>
> Many of the fundamentals are covered in the NETmundial principles, but the
> operationalisation of these principles remains a work in progress.
> For ICANN that work has been ongoing 17 years, for the IGF it has been
> 10 years... but the Westminster system took about 300 years to develop to
> where it is, so your demand for a comprehensive blueprint now seems a bit
> unreasonable.  Having said that, a number of us including me have put
> forward some quite specific proposals, which I can point you to.
> The NETmundial meeting itself also shows what becomes possible where the
> political will is there.
>
> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model to which
> you are asking the world to entrust the electronic infrastructure which
> increasingly underlies all aspects of daily life--as "a work in progress";
> as the "work" of a thoroughly bloated out of control agency living very
> high
> off the hog on their accountable Internet tax revenue whose governance
> model
> on seems to be to spend a zillion dollars ferrying anyone who seems to have
> an interest to every possible exotic 5 star hotel location anywhere in the
> world, wining and dining this thoroughly compromised army into stupefaction
> and then calling that governance; as a bunch of half cooked proposals
> squirreled away in inaccessible jargon and inaccessible blogs; and as a one
> two day event organized to respond to an Internet calamity and then
> hijacked
> to support the interests of precisely those who sponsored the calamity...
> hmmm....
>
>> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what
> exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and
> please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory
> democracy"
>
> There are reams of literature on this, have you read any of it?  Or for an
> overview, see
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-internet-gov
> ernance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3.
> For the next IGF there is a proposal (on which I'm a advisor) to hold a
> deliberative poll.  It doesn't mean that everyone in the world has to be
> involved, it means that about 300 people who cover all significantly
> affected perspectives should be involved.
>
> [MG>] I (re)read the blog post you pointed to and what I got was a rather
> repetitive set of circular definitions defining MSist "democracy" as being
> "how MSism is currently operating".  So MSism is fundamentally democratic
> because MSism is how democracy is defined (according to the blogpost) ...
> If
> it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then by (my) definition it must
> be a dog because I want it to be...
>
>> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori
>> have
> the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead
> role, how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in
> which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead
> role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes
> of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is
> representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't
> matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.
>
> I posted about this yesterday in response to Parminder.
>
>  [MG>] Which as I recall was less an answer than another circular
> argument... According to your post we resolve issues of accountability and
> jurisdiction as between governments and multistakeholder processes by
> developing additional multistakeholder processes to address these issues
> and
> presumably we resolve issues for governing those processes by developing
> further MS processes and turtles on turtles as far as the eye can see (with
> nary a reference to a democratic process or democratic accountability
> anywhere up or down the line...
>
> Quite frankly I'm still waiting for something on MSism with some substance
> and depth to discuss.  One of the reasons for the degeneration in the level
> of debate is that the debate is so conceptually lopsided.  Without
> something
> serious to discuss concerning what is meant by MSism and the MS model in
> broader Internet Governance all that is possible is the verbal ping pong
> which everyone is so bored with.
>
> M
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Feb  6 12:28:24 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:28:24 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <410A482C-CC2E-4ABC-AF9F-C0D21358B1F5@difference.com.au>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7   6501860$@gm a i l.com>
 <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
 <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
 <410A482C-CC2E-4ABC-AF9F-C0D21358B1F5@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <00a101d04232$51590190$f40b04b0$@gmail.com>

Inline...

-----Original Message-----
From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:39 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On 6 Feb 2015, at 2:06 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good observation David... the issue is that when we were drafting the 
> Delhi Declaration it never occurred to any of us that there would be 
> the full-throated attack on democracy that is now evident as the 
> underlying basis and intent of multi-stakeholderism.  Certainly not 
> one that would come from within Civil Society.

	I do tend the think that the idea that there is a full-throated
attack on democracy from within civil society to be rather hyperbolic.

[MG>] Perhaps a defense of democracy and a serious explanation of how
democracy is compatible with multi-stakeholder decision making from the CS
folks you are referring to would counter my perception that the intention is
to replace democratic governance with multi-stakeholder governance as what
appear to be the foundational MS documents by Tapscott, the WEF and the
Aspen Institute make quite clear.

> In the real world of course, where decisions are being made, the 
> question becomes as you are posing it--do we abandon the democratic 
> principle even though it is not fully realized and is in many cases 
> only aspirational or do we accept that ultimately global decision 
> making will be a mix of democratic values, the national articulation 
> of democratic values and aspirations and national representations of 
> national interests many or most of (the latter
> of) which pay only nominal attention to the democratic aspirations of 
> their people.  That is do we abandon democracy in favour of governance by
elites?

	My answer would start by saying that you have set up a false
dichotomy in your final sentence.
	Setting democracy and deliberative multi-stakeholder consensus based
decision making as in opposition is unhelpful. Instead, ask how can we make
multi-stakeholder processes more democratic. That isn’t trivial. For a
start, there is no one simple idea of what it means to be democratic).
	And what does it mean to have governance by elites? There are
significant practical issues to overcome - many internet issues are such
that anyone who has a thorough understanding may be considered part of a
technical elite. And of course there are social mechanisms by which
representative democracy tends to create its own elites.

[MG>] All very useful points and the bases for some equally useful dialogue
and discussion once the normative foundations for the discussion have been
agreed upon.  But as is clear from the current bulk of back and forth on
this list and in other IG venues there is no such agreement on those
normative foundations since the MS proponents present MSism not simply as a
modality of discussion but as a fundamental normative principle for
governmental decision making and one moreover which is presented as a
substitute/alternative for current forms of formal governmental decision
making which at least aspirationally are "democratic".  

> There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some 
> form of democratic and representative structures in place.  The degree 
> to which these are truly democratic and representative (and 
> transparent and
> accountable) varies of course enormously but in many instances they 
> are all that is available and they do provide the on-going opportunity 
> for realizing the aspirations for popular sovereignty in these countries
as others.

	A good question then would be: why do you consistently treat even
massively constrained, subverted/corrupted government processes that
proclaim themselves democratic as somehow having more legitimacy than open,
transparent multi-stakeholder processes?

[MG>] I can respond in one of two ways... either I've already  answered that
question in the above commentary or to carry on this discussion further we
need to have a great deal more time and attention to devote to this than I
have at the moment. However,  I believe that democratic governance has to be
the bedrock and foundation of all systems of governance.  Because some/many
systems don't achieve a desirable degree of democratic
accountability/representivity etc. doesn't mean that we replace that
aspiration rather it means that we redouble efforts to achieve more fully
realized universal democratic accountability.  In the real world where
gender equality is not achieved the response is not to replace that as a
bedrock value by for example "separate but equal" as a normative position.
Again in the real world we may feel the need to tolerate systems where there
is no gender equality and even accept positions espousing "separate but
equal" but that doesn't and shouldn't change our underlying values,
aspirations and action orientations.

	Plenty of nations use the term democracy, and it is astute of you to
notice that maybe some of them are not really terribly democratic (i.e. the
DPRK, despite having democratic right there in the name, really isn’t all
that democratic). I realise that, say, sometimes an authoritarian absolute
monarchy that bans elections, political parties, and free speech, but allows
some of its citizens to contend for the right to advise it, is sometimes
‘all that is available’, should you live in the KSA. But this reasoning -
that because their profoundly anti-democratic government is the only thing
available, supporting their primary role in public policy is somehow
supporting democracy, seems extremely stretched. Black is white, war is
peace, an authoritarian absolute monarchy allowing a minority to stand for
election to an advisory council is democracy?

[MG>] Of course that isn't what I said and as above to go into this further
would take much more time than I have currently available. Perhaps ICANN
could divert a bit of the money it currently spends on just the canapes for
its endless stream of "multistakeholder" 5 star hotel self-congratulatory
meetings to support a serious discussion including others than its insider
campfollowers where these kinds of matters could be looked at at length and
in depth. These matters are important and worth discussing but rather too
complex for these kinds of casual interactions.  

> The intent that you seem to be arguing for is to abandon "democratic"
> structures and aspirations in favour of self-directed governance by 
> elites with no effective measures for representivity, transparency or 
> accountability in that governance structure.

	Not at all. My argument is that a very practical method of working
towards more democratic structures in Internet governance is to work towards
increased representativity, transparency, and accountability within the
multi-stakeholder governance structures we have.

[MG>] But first we need to have some sort of clear explanation/definition of
what those MS governance structures actually are... Lists of things that are
called MS governance structures without giving an underlying set of
definitions isn't I think sufficient for various kinds of reasons that might
be gathered under the rubric of "Red Queenism".... terms meaning what I
self-interestedly say they mean   ... Once we have something to point to
that has some degree of commonality and reflects some deeper structures of
commonly recognized and recognizable characteristics that have some degree
of universal applicability (i.e. not another instance of pointing to that
ultimate walled garden, the IEFT) then asking the above question might make
sense particularly if we can agree on a definition of "democracy" and
"democratic governance".

	Frankly, I think we have a fair better chance of pushing
transparency and accountability and representativity within ICANN than we do
of pushing them within existing state based mechanisms for transnational
decision making.
	I mean, ICANN has its problems, but contrast it with mechanisms like
the TPPA or TTIP, and it doesn’t look so bad - and I think we can force
transparency and accountability on ICANN far more easily than we can on the
massively subverted international trade processes (and democratic nations
are among the worst offenders here).

[MG>] Frankly I think that pointing to ICANN as an example of anything other
than massive mission over-reach and the principle that too much money
corrupts and too much money without effective accountability corrupts
absolutely doesn't have much resonance with me or most of those in the real
i.e. non-ICANN world. 

> It seems to me that it is you who should be providing an explanation 
> and rationale for the principles of non-democracy and the 
> anti-democratic aspirations and values of multi-stakeholder decision 
> making which go against several thousand years of human history and 
> the values and aspirations of the vast and overwhelming majority of the
global population.

	Oh, please do tell me how multi-stakeholderism is less democratic
than the processes of Athenian city-states or Roman Emperors and other
governance mechanisms of the last few thousand years.
	Do you really think that not wanting to entrench the primary role of
government in Internet governance is against the aspirations of the citizens
of China, because they really want their governments censorship policies to
be more represented on the global stage? That the people on India are
desperate to have government calls for national level censorship given a
stronger voice over the many domestic civil society groups that oppose it?
	Hyberbolic rhetoric doesn’t help, but you really do seem to enjoy
it.

[MG>] Please explain to me how misrepresenting an argument in the way that
you have done and as you habitually do in the above and throughout the
course of all your contributions in this electronic space are furthering
reasonable discourse rather than allowing you to score cheap self-serving
"rhetorical" points.

> 
> Finally, I fail to see how the organizational form of the JNC as a 
> free association of its members and supporters or of its individual or 
> organizational supporters is of any relevance in this or any similar 
> discussion.

	Do you apply the same criteria to your other civil society
colleagues? I’m certainly over being regularly accused of being part of a
‘self selected elite’. My organisation has a membership of several hundred
people, and I face regular re-election. As part of that elected role, I
participate in civil society processes within ICANN and elsewhere. Am I part
of a self-selected elite?

[MG>] I don’t know you or your organization and I'm delighted to hear that
you represent several hundred people... But the issue of self-selection has
to do with broader issues of democracy, accountability, representivity and
governance much beyond you and your associates.  So far as I know the JNC
has never claimed for itself the right to participate as a consensus
participating "stakeholder" in decision making processes which might under
some circumstances impact very large swathes of humanity.

>  If folks of like mind choose to get together to advocate for a 
> particular set of norms and values how does that differ from any other 
> free association in a democratic structure.

	It just contrasts with your frequent rhetorical attacks on your
colleagues.

[MG>] See above

M

	Regards
		David

> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:12 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> 
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 1:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I would
> guess for the JNC.
>> 
>> I, at least, believe in the “sovereign right” of the people not of 
>> “nations” (or governments or states

> 
> 	The JNC position at WGEC was to retain article 35 of the Tunis 
> Agenda, which states
> 	• Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the 
> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for 
> international Internet-related public policy issues
> 	And as far as I am aware nothing has changed.
> 
> 	Now, Michael, I have absolutely no issue with you dissenting from
the 
> JNC position, but the JNC position certainly appears to be that they 
> support the sovereign right of states over internet policy.
> 
> 
>> In some instances this “sovereign right” is able to be exercised 
>> through
> the democratic processes governing the actions of “nations” in other 
> instances (dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.) this is not 
> possible.  This latter case doesn’t remove the sovereign right of the 
> people nor is it transferred in these instances to the “nation”, 
> rather these sovereign rights await appropriate means/modalities for a 
> democratic execution.
> 
> 	Which is a reasonable position (though I feel it translates very 
> poorly to any sort of intergovernmental process), it just does not 
> appear to be the JNC position. The JNC position as of WGEC was to 
> support the sovereign right of states regardless of their democratic 
> status. And JNC explicitly took this position without support from 
> other civil society participants, but with the support of Saudi Arabia and
Iran.
> 
>> And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one can 
>> start talking simply about “elites” as the governing structures of 
>> these multi-stakeholder processes 

> 
> 	Do you think the civil society representatives on NMI are elites? In

> what sense?
> 
>> Of course, these folks are “self-selected” in their governance role 
>> while
> their being “elites” derives from their position of power in various 
> economic, political and social structures or as courtiers to those who do.
> 
> 	It is odd indeed how much JNC representatives accuse everyone else
of 
> being ‘self-selected’ as a criticism. JNC seems to have their share of 
> members who represent organisations with a very small membership that 
> exist for no purpose other than to be vehicles for Internet governance 
> participation.
> 
> 	Regards
> 
> 		Davids
> 
>> M
>> 
>> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
>> Cc: Avri Doria
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> 
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Errr
 yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who 
>> believe in
> and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in 
> the governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder)
elite.
>> 
>> 
>>            JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic
> nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, 
> all this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers.
>> 
>>            And of course, we now understand ‘self appointed elite’ to 
>> be
> JNC speak for ‘those who choose to show up to open fora’. The JNC 
> attitude, given the number of decisions it makes without even 
> consulting with civil society colleagues, would seem to be that they 
> should do the appointing. I make no apology for not being very keen on
that.
>> 
>>            David
>> 
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri 
>> Doria
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with 
>> one
> voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support 
> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and 
> those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet 
> public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.
>> 
>> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those 
> other issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we 
> made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to 
> influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept.  
> While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger 
> issues, I do not think we should expect to reach consensus on these
issues.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> thx. for the discussion.
>> 
>> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
> outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom 
> up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on 
> common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in 
> the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in 
> CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the 
> basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be 
> conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept".
>> 
>> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
> reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak 
> seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this 
> "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is 
> united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, 
> access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki 
>> Chango
>> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
>> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> WK is
>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>> 
>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one 
>> voice" says concretely!
>> 
>> 
>> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced
with.
>> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led 
>> me to state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting 
>> enough, you
>> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just 
>> wasn't the issue implied by my statement.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one 
>> voice.
>> 
>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that 
>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being 
>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right 
>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion 
>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>> 
>> 
>> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united 
>> voice (you choose your preferred adjective)?
>> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems 
>> to be what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the 
>> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part 
>> is
>> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no 
>> matter how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and 
>> they certainly cannot always
>> do)
>> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and 
>> trust among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>> 
>> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for 
>> IGC to untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>> 
>> Mawaki
>> 
>> 
>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent 
>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a 
>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive 
>> than it would claim to be.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Feb  6 12:38:32 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:38:32 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <C7C046E1-8E30-4393-B388-47D682E0811F@difference.com.au>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com>
 <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
 <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
 <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <54D3E398.8
 030603@eff.or g > <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <C7C046E1-8E30-4393-B388-47D682E0811F@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <00cf01d04233$ba397f40$2eac7dc0$@gmail.com>

David, in the below you do two things-give a screed on behalf of ICANN and
identify a number of issues well worth further exploring outside of the
hurly burly of a public email list.

 

Re: ICANN.  I consider ICANN to be an agency with a responsibility to pursue
the global public interest.  Its internal accountability is of course
important given that it has access to considerable funds (derived
recurrently as a "tax" on global internet users). However, what I think is
rather more important is how it structures its external accountability i.e.
its accountability to global Internet users (which I have argued elsewhere
is now effectively everyone in the world).  

 

I would be delighted to be pointed in the direction of materials describing
how ICANN intends to facilitate the latter type of global external
accountability within a commitment to democratic governance as this would be
a useful contribution to the on-going discussion on how mechanisms to ensure
democratic governance of and through the Internet might be framed.

 

I would further be delighted to engage with you or others in serious and
in-depth discussion on the various additional issues of democracy, MSism,
accountability, governance and so on that have been identified.
Unfortunately to date no appropriate "neutral" venue or other circumstance
has been forthcoming to enable and support such discussions. Perhaps as I
mentioned in my earlier note, ICANN might be induced to divert some of its
"public" funding to supporting such an activity which to my mind would
clearly be in the broader public interest.

 

M

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 9:40 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

 

 

On 6 Feb 2015, at 7:20 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:





Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental
questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer for,
for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the
following questions in one or another form).  

Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some
detail on what is meant by:
a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are the
internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the normal
things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to commit
their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give up these
questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of interest
and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of the
governed.

 

            I think you have the process backwards somewhat, Michael. For
example, there is a really large, complex process looking very seriously at
accountability mechanisms within ICANN right now. There are cross community
working groups, multiple work streams, proposals and discussion flying
around, and it is deeply intertwined with the IANA transition process. A lot
of really significant accountability changes are being canvassed, such
external review processes, mechanisms to remove board members, etc. For
those civil society groups engaged with ICANN, this is occupying a great
deal of our time. You are asking to fully understand the accountability
mechanisms within complex organisations before you commit to becoming
involved. I think if you wish to have good accountability within those
structure, become involved and fight for it. 

 

https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability

 

            And information about the accountability mechanisms that already
exist is not hard to find at all. Want to know about accountability
mechanisms within ICANN?

Start here, spend a few hours reading, you'll know more than most ICANN
participants

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/accountability-en

The ATRT reports are perhaps not the best place to start for an outsider,
but they are well worth a read, with a LOT of information about ICANN
accountability and transparency mechanisms and how they work in practice,
from independent review processes that include both genuine outsiders and
knowledgable ICANN insiders (Avri was on the second ATRT, and did a lot of
great work). 

 

            I don't think there is a fundamental disagreement on the
principles of accountability between JNC and groups like NCSG that are
engaged with ICANN, but there is a profound gulf on tactics. For example,
the JNC position on ICANN seems to be 'we are unsure that ICANN is
sufficiently accountable, so we will refuse to engage'. The end result is
that most JNC comments on accountability within ICANN etc are not listened
to, not because they are wrong in principle, but because they are
misinformed, lacking the knowledge that comes from direct experience and
relying on third hand reports. I recall last year, for example,
conversations with you that made it clear that you had no idea at all that
direct participants in ICANN policy processes had to lodge a statement of
interest. 

            In NCSG you won't find us saying many good things about ICANN
accountability either, but the difference is that, having engaged directly
with its accountability mechanisms and discovered first hand their problems,
we are now (given the leverage of the IANA transition process) in a good
position to push to change those accountability mechanisms for the better.
We know what works, we know what doesn't, we know how mechanisms will be
subverted or weakened. Accountability isn't a slogan, it is a battle front,
and one on which we currently have a good chance to make some very solid
gains. 

            Which isn't to say that I feel that being the internal
opposition is the only viable strategy. Rather, strategically we should have
both an internal opposition and an external opposition, and they should work
together. At the moment, JNC seems to spend a large amount of its effort on
attacking civil society colleagues for acting as the internal opposition. 






b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what
exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and
please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory
democracy"

 

            This is actually an area that deserves significant discussion.
Is the model of democracy we want aggregative (in which case certainly
multi-stakeholderism fails, but we have no good model for transnational
aggregative democracy, nor is one likely to emerge IMO - and democracy
should be more than the tyranny of the majority) or deliberative (in which
case multi-stakeholderism can be seen as profoundly democratic, as it forces
deliberation, but multi-stakeholderism models currently do a poor job of
dealing with situations where deliberation fails to achieve consensus)? Is
democracy about representing the views of the majority, or protecting the
voice and rights of minorities? Is democracy about the voice of the people,
or is it about justice for all?

            These are not new debates. They are among the oldest of
political debates, and we will continue to have them. There is no one
defining right answer. Civil society should have a range of views and
priorities. I admit that as I represent a civil rights organisation within
most IG processes, my focus is on protection of rights for all, but that is
my individual focus. 

 

            My primary policy difference with JNC is simply that JNCs
dialogue about democracy vs multistakeholderism pretty much entirely ignores
the problem of anti-democratic governments. I literally cannot recall a
single comment from JNC advocates that addresses the issue. 





c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori have
the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead
role

 

            The whole point of multi-stakeholderism is that no one sector
has a lead role. 





, how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in which
circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead role" to
be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes of
accountability in these alternative modalities, how is
representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't
matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.

 

            These are really good questions. I do not think there is a
single simple answer. There ARE areas in which governments should have the
primary public policy role. But there are areas in which they should not.
There do need to be accountability mechanisms, but such mechanisms do need
to evolve to deal with the issues that arise from specific processes. How do
we broaden inclusivity of processes, especially ones (such as very technical
processes) that have a high barrier to entry. 

            And the question of how we deal with
inclusivity/representativity in the absence of anchored democratic processes
in another issue that is important, but that is a big problem without a
simple solution. Because transnational processes are always conducted in the
absence of anchored democratic processes as long as there are major states
that are not democratic. As I said above, my biggest policy disagreement
with the JNC is how often it conflates 'states' and 'democratic states',
such as the rhetoric supporting its push to retain article 35. It is naive
and hypocritical not to up front address the issue that any time a JNC
position supports a primary role for government, it strengthens
authoritarian anti-democratic governments as well as democratically elected
ones - and that is leaving aside the 'neoliberal' corporatist subversion of
the international trade position of most democratically elected governments,
which you'd think would be a JNC concern really. 

 

I don't mean these questions argumentatively but rather these are some of
the questions that need to be answered before any kind of discussion of
these kinds can go forward.  (Simply "answering" them through the creation
of "facts" in reality a la the NMI only makes the issues more fraught and
difficult to address in reality although perhaps not in theory since the
actors and actions involved tosses the theoretical underpinnings into stark
relief.)

 

            I have some sympathy, though I think that we practically have to
deal with processes that are happening as well. I would certainly support
dialogue on issues such as how to address risks to democracy in
mutti-stakeholder fora, how to promote democratic mechanisms in
transnational fora that include powerful anti-democratic nations, etc. But I
would argue that your frequent use of terms like democracy and
accountability in cheap sloganeering is detrimental to that dialogue. 






BTW, it would be good if the evidently closed loop of self-reflexive IG
think tanks etc. --the WEF/NMI, the Bildt Commission or whatever it's
called, ICANN's various internal too-ing and fro-ings could use some of
their expense account zillions to actually address some of these rather
fundamental issues in a way that actually recognized the internal
controversies and external oppositions.

 

            I can assure you that while some recent ICANN think tank
exercises may have been exercises in internal group-think, the IANA and
Accountability processes (for example) very much do recognise the internal
controversies and external oppositions. And many other ICANN processes very
much recognise the internal controversies.

 

            Regards

 

                        David




M 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 1:42 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On 5/02/2015 12:08 pm, David Allen wrote:



There is, and has been, an entirely fundamental divide, separating two camps
within the civil society gathered here.  Without putting too fine a point on
it, on the one side are those who see multi-stakeholderism as a complete
solution; on the other side, democracy is the starting point.


If anyone will raise their hand and agree with that framing of the former
perspective as encapsulating their views, then I guess you have framed it
fairly.  If not (anyone?) then can I suggest a more balanced framing of that
perspective: those who advocate for the development of multi-stakeholder
models of democratic representation in global Internet governance in which
governments do not a priori have the lead role (though in appropriate cases
they may).

--
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




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

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150206/328acd44/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From coffin at isoc.org  Fri Feb  6 13:48:09 2015
From: coffin at isoc.org (Jane Coffin)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 18:48:09 +0000
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxg4Xd+=ZGCatFoQeJvppNtD-s+ne8x8jDqfs_ixxzwSeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
 <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
 <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
 <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au>
 <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
 <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>
 <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
 <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu>
 <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <54D40808.8040000@eff.org>
 <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxg4Xd+=ZGCatFoQeJvppNtD-s+ne8x8jDqfs_ixxzwSeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D0FA7690.14691%coffin@isoc.org>

+1 to this.

On 2/6/15, 3:31 AM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

>Michael,
>
>Must be brief as I am in an airport on my way to one of those 5 star
>hotels now.
>
>Study the RIRs (or IETF) as models of BUTOC (bottom-up, open,
>transparent, consensus based) MSism.
>
>They have 3+ decades of functioning experience to guide you.
>
>
>
>On 2/6/15, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy
>>Malcolm
>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:17 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>
>> On 5/02/2015 3:20 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental
>> questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer
>> for,
>> for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the
>> following questions in one or another form).
>>
>> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that
>>anything
>> I
>> could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to reply at length
>> which
>> I don't.  So just some quick points.
>>
>> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered"
>>with
>> similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't point
>>to
>> anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and we'll have a
>>good
>> set of MS models to show you...; circular and self-reflexive
>> arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D. theses; that sort
>>of
>> thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000 years of building popular
>> democracy and hardly sufficient (hopefully) to persuade us to all
>>stampede
>> towards governance by unelected elites unless you are already committed
>>in
>> that direction...
>>
>>> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give
>>>some
>> detail on what is meant by:
>>> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what
>>>are
>> the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the
>> normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked
>>to
>> commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to
>>give
>> up
>> these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of
>> interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of
>> the
>> governed.
>>
>> Many of the fundamentals are covered in the NETmundial principles, but
>>the
>> operationalisation of these principles remains a work in progress.
>> For ICANN that work has been ongoing 17 years, for the IGF it has been
>> 10 years... but the Westminster system took about 300 years to develop
>>to
>> where it is, so your demand for a comprehensive blueprint now seems a
>>bit
>> unreasonable.  Having said that, a number of us including me have put
>> forward some quite specific proposals, which I can point you to.
>> The NETmundial meeting itself also shows what becomes possible where the
>> political will is there.
>>
>> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model to
>>which
>> you are asking the world to entrust the electronic infrastructure which
>> increasingly underlies all aspects of daily life--as "a work in
>>progress";
>> as the "work" of a thoroughly bloated out of control agency living very
>> high
>> off the hog on their accountable Internet tax revenue whose governance
>> model
>> on seems to be to spend a zillion dollars ferrying anyone who seems to
>>have
>> an interest to every possible exotic 5 star hotel location anywhere in
>>the
>> world, wining and dining this thoroughly compromised army into
>>stupefaction
>> and then calling that governance; as a bunch of half cooked proposals
>> squirreled away in inaccessible jargon and inaccessible blogs; and as a
>>one
>> two day event organized to respond to an Internet calamity and then
>> hijacked
>> to support the interests of precisely those who sponsored the
>>calamity...
>> hmmm....
>>
>>> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D"
>>>word--what
>> exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and
>> please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory
>> democracy"
>>
>> There are reams of literature on this, have you read any of it?  Or for
>>an
>> overview, see
>> 
>>http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-internet-
>>gov
>> ernance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3.
>> For the next IGF there is a proposal (on which I'm a advisor) to hold a
>> deliberative poll.  It doesn't mean that everyone in the world has to be
>> involved, it means that about 300 people who cover all significantly
>> affected perspectives should be involved.
>>
>> [MG>] I (re)read the blog post you pointed to and what I got was a
>>rather
>> repetitive set of circular definitions defining MSist "democracy" as
>>being
>> "how MSism is currently operating".  So MSism is fundamentally
>>democratic
>> because MSism is how democracy is defined (according to the blogpost)
>>...
>> If
>> it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then by (my) definition it
>>must
>> be a dog because I want it to be...
>>
>>> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori
>>> have
>> the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the
>>lead
>> role, how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in
>> which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead
>> role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal
>>processes
>> of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is
>> representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't
>> matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.
>>
>> I posted about this yesterday in response to Parminder.
>>
>>  [MG>] Which as I recall was less an answer than another circular
>> argument... According to your post we resolve issues of accountability
>>and
>> jurisdiction as between governments and multistakeholder processes by
>> developing additional multistakeholder processes to address these issues
>> and
>> presumably we resolve issues for governing those processes by developing
>> further MS processes and turtles on turtles as far as the eye can see
>>(with
>> nary a reference to a democratic process or democratic accountability
>> anywhere up or down the line...
>>
>> Quite frankly I'm still waiting for something on MSism with some
>>substance
>> and depth to discuss.  One of the reasons for the degeneration in the
>>level
>> of debate is that the debate is so conceptually lopsided.  Without
>> something
>> serious to discuss concerning what is meant by MSism and the MS model in
>> broader Internet Governance all that is possible is the verbal ping pong
>> which everyone is so bored with.
>>
>> M
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Cheers,
>
>McTim
>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>


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

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Fri Feb  6 14:00:47 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 20:00:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <D0FA7690.14691%coffin@isoc.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <54D40808.8040000@eff.org> <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxg4Xd+=ZGCatFoQeJvppNtD-s+ne8x8jDqfs_ixxzwSeQ@mail.gmail.com> <D0FA7690.14691%coffin@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <14CFEBD9-1DE8-4A26-AE6E-AFEA43B5406B@consensus.pro>

And from me too.

On 6 Feb 2015, at 19:48, Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org> wrote:

> +1 to this.
> 
> On 2/6/15, 3:31 AM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Michael,
>> 
>> Must be brief as I am in an airport on my way to one of those 5 star
>> hotels now.
>> 
>> Study the RIRs (or IETF) as models of BUTOC (bottom-up, open,
>> transparent, consensus based) MSism.
>> 
>> They have 3+ decades of functioning experience to guide you.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/6/15, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hmmm...
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy
>>> Malcolm
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:17 PM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>> 
>>> On 5/02/2015 3:20 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental
>>> questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer
>>> for,
>>> for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the
>>> following questions in one or another form).
>>> 
>>> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that
>>> anything
>>> I
>>> could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to reply at length
>>> which
>>> I don't.  So just some quick points.
>>> 
>>> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered"
>>> with
>>> similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't point
>>> to
>>> anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and we'll have a
>>> good
>>> set of MS models to show you...; circular and self-reflexive
>>> arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D. theses; that sort
>>> of
>>> thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000 years of building popular
>>> democracy and hardly sufficient (hopefully) to persuade us to all
>>> stampede
>>> towards governance by unelected elites unless you are already committed
>>> in
>>> that direction...
>>> 
>>>> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give
>>>> some
>>> detail on what is meant by:
>>>> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what
>>>> are
>>> the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the
>>> normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked
>>> to
>>> commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to
>>> give
>>> up
>>> these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of
>>> interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of
>>> the
>>> governed.
>>> 
>>> Many of the fundamentals are covered in the NETmundial principles, but
>>> the
>>> operationalisation of these principles remains a work in progress.
>>> For ICANN that work has been ongoing 17 years, for the IGF it has been
>>> 10 years... but the Westminster system took about 300 years to develop
>>> to
>>> where it is, so your demand for a comprehensive blueprint now seems a
>>> bit
>>> unreasonable.  Having said that, a number of us including me have put
>>> forward some quite specific proposals, which I can point you to.
>>> The NETmundial meeting itself also shows what becomes possible where the
>>> political will is there.
>>> 
>>> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model to
>>> which
>>> you are asking the world to entrust the electronic infrastructure which
>>> increasingly underlies all aspects of daily life--as "a work in
>>> progress";
>>> as the "work" of a thoroughly bloated out of control agency living very
>>> high
>>> off the hog on their accountable Internet tax revenue whose governance
>>> model
>>> on seems to be to spend a zillion dollars ferrying anyone who seems to
>>> have
>>> an interest to every possible exotic 5 star hotel location anywhere in
>>> the
>>> world, wining and dining this thoroughly compromised army into
>>> stupefaction
>>> and then calling that governance; as a bunch of half cooked proposals
>>> squirreled away in inaccessible jargon and inaccessible blogs; and as a
>>> one
>>> two day event organized to respond to an Internet calamity and then
>>> hijacked
>>> to support the interests of precisely those who sponsored the
>>> calamity...
>>> hmmm....
>>> 
>>>> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D"
>>>> word--what
>>> exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and
>>> please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory
>>> democracy"
>>> 
>>> There are reams of literature on this, have you read any of it?  Or for
>>> an
>>> overview, see
>>> 
>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-internet-
>>> gov
>>> ernance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3.
>>> For the next IGF there is a proposal (on which I'm a advisor) to hold a
>>> deliberative poll.  It doesn't mean that everyone in the world has to be
>>> involved, it means that about 300 people who cover all significantly
>>> affected perspectives should be involved.
>>> 
>>> [MG>] I (re)read the blog post you pointed to and what I got was a
>>> rather
>>> repetitive set of circular definitions defining MSist "democracy" as
>>> being
>>> "how MSism is currently operating".  So MSism is fundamentally
>>> democratic
>>> because MSism is how democracy is defined (according to the blogpost)
>>> ...
>>> If
>>> it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then by (my) definition it
>>> must
>>> be a dog because I want it to be...
>>> 
>>>> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori
>>>> have
>>> the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the
>>> lead
>>> role, how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in
>>> which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead
>>> role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal
>>> processes
>>> of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is
>>> representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't
>>> matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.
>>> 
>>> I posted about this yesterday in response to Parminder.
>>> 
>>> [MG>] Which as I recall was less an answer than another circular
>>> argument... According to your post we resolve issues of accountability
>>> and
>>> jurisdiction as between governments and multistakeholder processes by
>>> developing additional multistakeholder processes to address these issues
>>> and
>>> presumably we resolve issues for governing those processes by developing
>>> further MS processes and turtles on turtles as far as the eye can see
>>> (with
>>> nary a reference to a democratic process or democratic accountability
>>> anywhere up or down the line...
>>> 
>>> Quite frankly I'm still waiting for something on MSism with some
>>> substance
>>> and depth to discuss.  One of the reasons for the degeneration in the
>>> level
>>> of debate is that the debate is so conceptually lopsided.  Without
>>> something
>>> serious to discuss concerning what is meant by MSism and the MS model in
>>> broader Internet Governance all that is possible is the verbal ping pong
>>> which everyone is so bored with.
>>> 
>>> M
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>> 
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>> 
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
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/20150206/5234b214/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 nb at bollow.ch  Fri Feb  6 14:09:34 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 20:09:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] JNC position on article 35 of the Tunis Agenda (was
 Re: Towards an Internet Social Forum)
In-Reply-To: <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
	<54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
	<54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net>
	<001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
	<009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
	<54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
	<14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
	<"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
	<02a001d03ee9$27700820$7
  6501860$@gmai l.com>
	<F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au>
	<00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
	<FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <20150206200934.23931db6@quill>

Dear all

Just a quick clarification, as I currently lack the time that would be
required to enter this debate substantively:

There has not been any "JNC position at WGEC", as JNC has not been a
WGEC participant. In fact when WGEC was constituted, JNC hadn't even
been formed yet. However, to my best knowledge, what Parminder (who
participated in WGEC, although not as a representative of JNC) actually
said at WGEC is nevertheless fully consistent with JNC's positions.

This cannot be said in regard to how several others have been
characterizing JNC's (and also Parminder's) positions: There have been
several public mis-characterizations that are full of assertions of
strawman positions which are very easy to disagree with.


The actual position which JNC has adopted and published in regard to
this matter is the following: 

"Just Net Coalition agrees with the spirit of paragraph 35 of the Tunis
Agenda in that that governments have specific public policy roles and
responsibilities, and other stakeholders cannot claim a similar
position as governments in this regard. However, we consider that the
description of the role given to civil society in this section is
inadequate. While the text does speak of an important role that civil
society should continue to play, this is inadequate because the
exclusive mention of 'community level' and not 'policy level' gives an
unbalanced view of civil society's role. While community level work and
linkages constitute the key legitimising factors of civil society,
civil society also has a strong role to play at the policy level in
terms of 'deepening democracy' whereby it brings to the policy table
representation of otherwise under-represented voices."

(This is the content of note 5 in JNC's October 14, 2014 Statement to
the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference of the International
Telecommunication Union.) 


I'm always interested in reading responses that agree or disagree with
JNC's positions, or otherwise discuss them in an insightful manner.
Postings that express disagreement with strawman positions which
neither JNC nor anyone else has adopted are much less interesting.


Greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
JustNetCoalition.org


On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 23:11:33 +0800
David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> 
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 1:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I
> > would guess for the JNC. 
> > I, at least, believe in the “sovereign right” of the people not of
> > “nations” (or governments or states…
> 	
> 	The JNC position at WGEC was to retain article 35 of the
> Tunis Agenda, which states • Policy authority for Internet-related
> public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have
> rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public
> policy issues And as far as I am aware nothing has changed. 
> 
> 	Now, Michael, I have absolutely no issue with you dissenting
> from the JNC position, but the JNC position certainly appears to be
> that they support the sovereign right of states over internet policy. 
> 
> 
> > In some instances this “sovereign right” is able to be exercised
> > through the democratic processes governing the actions of “nations”
> > in other instances (dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.)
> > this is not possible.  This latter case doesn’t remove the
> > sovereign right of the people nor is it transferred in these
> > instances to the “nation”, rather these sovereign rights await
> > appropriate means/modalities for a democratic execution.
> 
> 	Which is a reasonable position (though I feel it translates
> very poorly to any sort of intergovernmental process), it just does
> not appear to be the JNC position. The JNC position as of WGEC was to
> support the sovereign right of states regardless of their democratic
> status. And JNC explicitly took this position without support from
> other civil society participants, but with the support of Saudi
> Arabia and Iran. 
> 
> > And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one
> > can start talking simply about “elites” as the governing structures
> > of these multi-stakeholder processes …
> 
> 	Do you think the civil society representatives on NMI are
> elites? In what sense? 
> 
> > Of course, these folks are “self-selected” in their governance role
> > while their being “elites” derives from their position of power in
> > various economic, political and social structures or as courtiers
> > to those who do.
> 	
> 	It is odd indeed how much JNC representatives accuse everyone
> else of being ‘self-selected’ as a criticism. JNC seems to have their
> share of members who represent organisations with a very small
> membership that exist for no purpose other than to be vehicles for
> Internet governance participation. 	
> 
> 	Regards
> 
> 		Davids
> 
> > M
> >  
> > From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> > Cc: Avri Doria
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> >  
> >  
> > On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who
> > believe in and the democratic governance of the Internet and those
> > who believe in the governance of the Internet by a self-appointed
> > (multistakeholder) elite. JNC supports the sovereign special rights
> > of undemocratic nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until
> > JNC addresses that, all this talk of democracy raises more
> > questions than it answers. And of course, we now understand ‘self
> > appointed elite’ to be JNC speak for ‘those who choose to show up
> > to open fora’. The JNC attitude, given the number of decisions it
> > makes without even consulting with civil society colleagues, would
> > seem to be that they should do the appointing. I make no apology
> > for not being very keen on that. David
> > 
> > 
> > M
> >  
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri
> > Doria Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM To:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an
> > Internet Social Forum 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with
> > one voice, given the fundamental differences between those who
> > support multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy
> > issues and those who support sovereign special rights on
> > international Internet public policy issues, it seems highly
> > unlikely.
> > 
> > On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> > fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those
> > other issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we
> > made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to
> > influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept.
> > While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger
> > issues, I do not think we should expect to reach consensus on these
> > issues.
> > 
> > avri
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> > Hi
> >  
> > thx. for the discussion.
> >  
> > The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is
> > the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a
> > bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and
> > agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been
> > possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous
> > statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was
> > workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon
> > Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in
> > what you accept". If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there
> > is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups
> > so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+
> > process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety
> > of different nuances but is united around basic values as human
> > rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital
> > divide etc. .. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:
> > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
> > Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24 An: Internet Governance; Norbert
> > Bollow Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> > wrote: ... WK is calling for civil society to "speak with one
> > voice". So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what
> > this "one voice" says concretely!
> >  
> >  
> > I find this question one of the most critical questions we are
> > faced with. It pertains to the same problem and observation that
> > previously led me to state that IGC does not have just ONE voice.
> > Interesting enough, you (Norbert) replied the following which I
> > don't disagree with but just wasn't the issue implied by my
> > statement. 
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> > wrote: 
> >  
> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
> > Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> > In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
> > voice.
> >  
> > In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
> > what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
> > done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list,
> > right now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad
> > discussion inclusive of the whole variety of civil society
> > viewpoints. 
> >  
> > So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united
> > voice (you choose your preferred adjective)?
> > Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which
> > seems to be what you're concerned with here (and yes, while
> > mentioning the non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But
> > the other big part is this: What will it take for members to accept
> > that their views, no matter how strong they feel about them, may
> > not carry the day (and they certainly cannot always
> > do)
> > and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace
> > and trust among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview
> > spectrum. 
> > In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot
> > for IGC to untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
> >  
> > Mawaki
> >  
> >  
> > In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
> > such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
> > whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
> > than it would claim to be.
> >  
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >  
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >  
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >  
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > 
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > 
> > 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150206/1f1b2ac8/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 jmalcolm at eff.org  Fri Feb  6 14:26:10 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:26:10 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org > <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <54D40808.8040000@eff.org> <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54D51552.4060902@eff.org>

On 5/02/2015 11:30 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that anything I
> could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to reply at length which
> I don't.  So just some quick points.
>
> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered" with
> similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't point to
> anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and we'll have a good
> set of MS models to show you...; circular and self-reflexive
> arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D. theses; that sort of
> thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000 years of building popular
> democracy and hardly sufficient (hopefully) to persuade us to all stampede
> towards governance by unelected elites unless you are already committed in
> that direction...

I knew I should have followed my better judgment and not replied.  Can
we henceforth just save some time and accept that you are less open to
exploring multi-stakeholder innovations in democratic global governance
than other of us are, and leave it at that?  Rather than
mischaracterising these efforts as promoting "governance by unelected
elites" which long ago became tiresome.

> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model to which
> you are asking the world to entrust the electronic infrastructure which
> increasingly underlies all aspects of daily life--as "a work in progress";
> as the "work" of a [ rant snipped here ] as a bunch of half cooked proposals
> squirreled away in inaccessible jargon and inaccessible blogs; and as a one
> two day event organized to respond to an Internet calamity and then hijacked
> to support the interests of precisely those who sponsored the calamity...

I don't focus on ICANN but as you (should) know I have been as critical
as anyone of the IGF, probably much more so, and I have also
acknowledged the shortcomings of NETmundial, but you have to weigh up
the value of just lambasting any imperfect process as irredeemably evil,
against the potential benefits of acknowledging that a start has been
made, and working to improve it.  The latter is my preferred approach.

-- 
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/20150206/87198ee7/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 gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Feb  6 14:34:56 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:34:56 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <14CFEBD9-1DE8-4A26-AE6E-AFEA43B5406B@consensus.pro>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au>
 <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>
 <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu>
 <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <54D40808.8040000@eff.org>
 <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxg4Xd+=ZGCatFoQeJvppNtD-s+ne8x8jDqfs_ixxzwSeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <D0FA7690.14691%coffin@isoc.org> <14CFEBD9-1DE8-4A26-AE6E-AFEA43B5406B@consensus
 .pro>
Message-ID: <017f01d04243$fd822030$f8866090$@gmail.com>

Thanks for this Tim et al... 

We've had this discussion before on the applicability of the ITEF experience
to broader areas of (non) technical Internet Governance.  

As I think I mentioned at the time, I would be interested in being pointed
to either an analysis of the IEFT experience which developed a model of the
processes involved at a sufficient level of generality that they could be
assessed against a variety of external criteria such as democratic
representivity, formal accountability, scalability, generalizability across
issue areas etc.  (As I recall I was at an earlier time pointed to an
academic thesis recounting the decision making methodology of the IETF but
it was at such a level of specificity that it was impossible (at least for
me) to draw any conclusions from this regarding the possibility of wider
applications.) Alternatively/additionally I would be interested in seeing an
analysis of the IETF experience which seriously looked at how generalizable
that experience might be into other domain areas with quite different
demographic, content associated, cultural and other characteristics.

As I mentioned in my reply to David (Cake) in the absence of such
analyses/information as the above and looking at the IETF only from a very
considerable distance I consider it to be something of a "walled garden"
given what appear to the (invisible but very real) barriers to
entry/participation based on level of technical skill/knowledge, cultural
background, level of education, demography (a very skewed gender ratio)
among others.  These barriers to entry are such as to fatally limit the
direct generalizability of the IETF model (these barriers presumably could
not and moreover one assumes, should not be repeated in other instances of
MS implementations). They further suggest that given the particularity of
the IETF experience few or no useful rules or processes can prima facie be
identified for replication in other domain areas so as to achieve the
benefits of MSism that are being ascribed to the IETF example.

My point being that in order for the example of the IETF to be useful as a
basis for a more general argument in favour of MSism it has to be
demonstrated that the experience of the IETF is generalizable across
domains, demographies, cultures etc. I have yet to see any serious research,
analysis or even argument that makes the case for such generalizability.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 11:01 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jane Coffin
Cc: Tim McGinnis; michael gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum


--Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

And from me too.

On 6 Feb 2015, at 19:48, Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org> wrote:

> +1 to this.
> 
> On 2/6/15, 3:31 AM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Michael,
>> 
>> Must be brief as I am in an airport on my way to one of those 5 star 
>> hotels now.
>> 
>> Study the RIRs (or IETF) as models of BUTOC (bottom-up, open, 
>> transparent, consensus based) MSism.
>> 
>> They have 3+ decades of functioning experience to guide you.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/6/15, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hmmm...
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy 
>>> Malcolm
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:17 PM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>> 
>>> On 5/02/2015 3:20 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most 
>>>> fundamental
>>> questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific 
>>> answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have 
>>> presented the following questions in one or another form).
>>> 
>>> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that 
>>> anything I could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to 
>>> reply at length which I don't.  So just some quick points.
>>> 
>>> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered"
>>> with
>>> similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't 
>>> point to anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and 
>>> we'll have a good set of MS models to show you...; circular and 
>>> self-reflexive arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D. 
>>> theses; that sort of thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000 
>>> years of building popular democracy and hardly sufficient 
>>> (hopefully) to persuade us to all stampede towards governance by 
>>> unelected elites unless you are already committed in that 
>>> direction...
>>> 
>>>> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually 
>>>> give some
>>> detail on what is meant by:
>>>> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, 
>>>> what are
>>> the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know 
>>> the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being 
>>> asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we 
>>> all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided 
>>> that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding 
>>> with or without the consent of the governed.
>>> 
>>> Many of the fundamentals are covered in the NETmundial principles, 
>>> but the operationalisation of these principles remains a work in 
>>> progress.
>>> For ICANN that work has been ongoing 17 years, for the IGF it has 
>>> been
>>> 10 years... but the Westminster system took about 300 years to 
>>> develop to where it is, so your demand for a comprehensive blueprint 
>>> now seems a bit unreasonable.  Having said that, a number of us 
>>> including me have put forward some quite specific proposals, which I 
>>> can point you to.
>>> The NETmundial meeting itself also shows what becomes possible where 
>>> the political will is there.
>>> 
>>> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model 
>>> to which you are asking the world to entrust the electronic 
>>> infrastructure which increasingly underlies all aspects of daily 
>>> life--as "a work in progress"; as the "work" of a thoroughly bloated 
>>> out of control agency living very high off the hog on their 
>>> accountable Internet tax revenue whose governance model on seems to 
>>> be to spend a zillion dollars ferrying anyone who seems to have an 
>>> interest to every possible exotic 5 star hotel location anywhere in 
>>> the world, wining and dining this thoroughly compromised army into 
>>> stupefaction and then calling that governance; as a bunch of half 
>>> cooked proposals squirreled away in inaccessible jargon and 
>>> inaccessible blogs; and as a one two day event organized to respond 
>>> to an Internet calamity and then hijacked to support the interests 
>>> of precisely those who sponsored the calamity...
>>> hmmm....
>>> 
>>>> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D"
>>>> word--what
>>> exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" 
>>> (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined 
>>> "participatory democracy"
>>> 
>>> There are reams of literature on this, have you read any of it?  Or 
>>> for an overview, see
>>> 
>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-inte
>>> rnet-
>>> gov
>>> ernance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3.
>>> For the next IGF there is a proposal (on which I'm a advisor) to 
>>> hold a deliberative poll.  It doesn't mean that everyone in the 
>>> world has to be involved, it means that about 300 people who cover 
>>> all significantly affected perspectives should be involved.
>>> 
>>> [MG>] I (re)read the blog post you pointed to and what I got was a 
>>> rather repetitive set of circular definitions defining MSist 
>>> "democracy" as being "how MSism is currently operating".  So MSism 
>>> is fundamentally democratic because MSism is how democracy is 
>>> defined (according to the blogpost) ...
>>> If
>>> it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then by (my) definition 
>>> it must be a dog because I want it to be...
>>> 
>>>> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a 
>>>> priori have
>>> the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the 
>>> lead role, how is their role determined, who decides who has the 
>>> lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those 
>>> alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable, 
>>> what are their internal processes of accountability in these 
>>> alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity 
>>> maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't
>>> matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.
>>> 
>>> I posted about this yesterday in response to Parminder.
>>> 
>>> [MG>] Which as I recall was less an answer than another circular 
>>> argument... According to your post we resolve issues of 
>>> accountability and jurisdiction as between governments and 
>>> multistakeholder processes by developing additional multistakeholder 
>>> processes to address these issues and presumably we resolve issues 
>>> for governing those processes by developing further MS processes and 
>>> turtles on turtles as far as the eye can see (with nary a reference 
>>> to a democratic process or democratic accountability anywhere up or 
>>> down the line...
>>> 
>>> Quite frankly I'm still waiting for something on MSism with some 
>>> substance and depth to discuss.  One of the reasons for the 
>>> degeneration in the level of debate is that the debate is so 
>>> conceptually lopsided.  Without something serious to discuss 
>>> concerning what is meant by MSism and the MS model in broader 
>>> Internet Governance all that is possible is the verbal ping pong 
>>> which everyone is so bored with.
>>> 
>>> M
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>> 
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>> 
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A 
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


--Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
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=V5I5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1--


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  6 15:00:03 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:00:03 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54D51552.4060902@eff.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org > <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <54D40808.8040000@eff.org> <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com> <54D51552.4060902@eff.!
 org>
Message-ID: <01a701d04247$7f98dca0$7eca95e0$@gmail.com>

As I've said before I personally would be delighted to explore with you or anyone else innovations in global Internet mediated governance.  I think this is particularly important and even necessary in our current historical moment given the challenges that the Internet transformations are introducing including through onrushing globalism, the quite general disillusionment with traditional forms of democratic representation, and the challenges to and seeming stalling or even retreat of effective democratic participation in governance in many parts of the world.  

I personally think that it is an open question, but one very much worth serious examination as to how various alternative approaches to more broadly effective governance such as MSism might be enabled in the current context and if or how they might contribute to more effective democracy/democracies and democratic governance. 

I think that this would be a most desirable and useful interim alternative to simply asserting the necessity, superiority and benefits of MSism and then proceeding to attempt to create highly contestible MS realities on the ground.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 11:26 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On 5/02/2015 11:30 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that 
> anything I could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to 
> reply at length which I don't.  So just some quick points.
>
> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered" 
> with similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't 
> point to anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and we'll 
> have a good set of MS models to show you...; circular and 
> self-reflexive arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D. 
> theses; that sort of thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000 
> years of building popular democracy and hardly sufficient (hopefully) 
> to persuade us to all stampede towards governance by unelected elites 
> unless you are already committed in that direction...

I knew I should have followed my better judgment and not replied.  Can we henceforth just save some time and accept that you are less open to exploring multi-stakeholder innovations in democratic global governance than other of us are, and leave it at that?  Rather than mischaracterising these efforts as promoting "governance by unelected elites" which long ago became tiresome.

> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model to 
> which you are asking the world to entrust the electronic 
> infrastructure which increasingly underlies all aspects of daily 
> life--as "a work in progress"; as the "work" of a [ rant snipped here 
> ] as a bunch of half cooked proposals squirreled away in inaccessible 
> jargon and inaccessible blogs; and as a one two day event organized to 
> respond to an Internet calamity and then hijacked to support the interests of precisely those who sponsored the calamity...

I don't focus on ICANN but as you (should) know I have been as critical as anyone of the IGF, probably much more so, and I have also acknowledged the shortcomings of NETmundial, but you have to weigh up the value of just lambasting any imperfect process as irredeemably evil, against the potential benefits of acknowledging that a start has been made, and working to improve it.  The latter is my preferred approach.

--
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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Feb  6 17:08:50 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 23:08:50 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>
 <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill>
 <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>
 <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au>
 <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>
 <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>
 <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>
 <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu>
 <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org> <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com>
 <54D40808.8040000@eff.org> <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com>
 <54D51552.4060902@eff.org> <01a701d04247$7f98dca0$7eca95e0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642B11@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

An interesting test case for a "new MSM" could become the process underway with the IANA Transition and ICANN accountability. This is "learning by doing" and procedures are emerging in a bottom up, open and transparent process.

Wolfgang






-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein
Gesendet: Fr 06.02.2015 21:00
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
Betreff: RE: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
 
As I've said before I personally would be delighted to explore with you or anyone else innovations in global Internet mediated governance.  I think this is particularly important and even necessary in our current historical moment given the challenges that the Internet transformations are introducing including through onrushing globalism, the quite general disillusionment with traditional forms of democratic representation, and the challenges to and seeming stalling or even retreat of effective democratic participation in governance in many parts of the world.  

I personally think that it is an open question, but one very much worth serious examination as to how various alternative approaches to more broadly effective governance such as MSism might be enabled in the current context and if or how they might contribute to more effective democracy/democracies and democratic governance. 

I think that this would be a most desirable and useful interim alternative to simply asserting the necessity, superiority and benefits of MSism and then proceeding to attempt to create highly contestible MS realities on the ground.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 11:26 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On 5/02/2015 11:30 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that 
> anything I could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to 
> reply at length which I don't.  So just some quick points.
>
> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered" 
> with similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't 
> point to anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and we'll 
> have a good set of MS models to show you...; circular and 
> self-reflexive arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D. 
> theses; that sort of thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000 
> years of building popular democracy and hardly sufficient (hopefully) 
> to persuade us to all stampede towards governance by unelected elites 
> unless you are already committed in that direction...

I knew I should have followed my better judgment and not replied.  Can we henceforth just save some time and accept that you are less open to exploring multi-stakeholder innovations in democratic global governance than other of us are, and leave it at that?  Rather than mischaracterising these efforts as promoting "governance by unelected elites" which long ago became tiresome.

> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model to 
> which you are asking the world to entrust the electronic 
> infrastructure which increasingly underlies all aspects of daily 
> life--as "a work in progress"; as the "work" of a [ rant snipped here 
> ] as a bunch of half cooked proposals squirreled away in inaccessible 
> jargon and inaccessible blogs; and as a one two day event organized to 
> respond to an Internet calamity and then hijacked to support the interests of precisely those who sponsored the calamity...

I don't focus on ICANN but as you (should) know I have been as critical as anyone of the IGF, probably much more so, and I have also acknowledged the shortcomings of NETmundial, but you have to weigh up the value of just lambasting any imperfect process as irredeemably evil, against the potential benefits of acknowledging that a start has been made, and working to improve it.  The latter is my preferred approach.

--
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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Feb  6 18:58:09 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 15:58:09 -0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642B11@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px
 =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au>
 <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>
 <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu>
 <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org> <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com>
 <54D40808.8040000@eff.org> <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com>
 <54D51552.4060902@eff.org> <01a701d04247$7f98dca0$7eca95e0$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60 C8E3C2F1A801642B11@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <026001d04268$c3d67c30$4b837490$@gmail.com>

Interesting Wolfgang (and David pointed to this as well...

Is anyone doing systematic research on this particularly within a research
protocol that reflects some of the issues currently being discussed on this
list and elsewhere with respect to MS models?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 2:09 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: AW: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

An interesting test case for a "new MSM" could become the process underway
with the IANA Transition and ICANN accountability. This is "learning by
doing" and procedures are emerging in a bottom up, open and transparent
process.

Wolfgang






-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein
Gesendet: Fr 06.02.2015 21:00
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
Betreff: RE: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
 
As I've said before I personally would be delighted to explore with you or
anyone else innovations in global Internet mediated governance.  I think
this is particularly important and even necessary in our current historical
moment given the challenges that the Internet transformations are
introducing including through onrushing globalism, the quite general
disillusionment with traditional forms of democratic representation, and the
challenges to and seeming stalling or even retreat of effective democratic
participation in governance in many parts of the world.  

I personally think that it is an open question, but one very much worth
serious examination as to how various alternative approaches to more broadly
effective governance such as MSism might be enabled in the current context
and if or how they might contribute to more effective democracy/democracies
and democratic governance. 

I think that this would be a most desirable and useful interim alternative
to simply asserting the necessity, superiority and benefits of MSism and
then proceeding to attempt to create highly contestible MS realities on the
ground.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 11:26 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On 5/02/2015 11:30 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that 
> anything I could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to 
> reply at length which I don't.  So just some quick points.
>
> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered" 
> with similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't 
> point to anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and we'll 
> have a good set of MS models to show you...; circular and 
> self-reflexive arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D.
> theses; that sort of thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000 
> years of building popular democracy and hardly sufficient (hopefully) 
> to persuade us to all stampede towards governance by unelected elites 
> unless you are already committed in that direction...

I knew I should have followed my better judgment and not replied.  Can we
henceforth just save some time and accept that you are less open to
exploring multi-stakeholder innovations in democratic global governance than
other of us are, and leave it at that?  Rather than mischaracterising these
efforts as promoting "governance by unelected elites" which long ago became
tiresome.

> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model to 
> which you are asking the world to entrust the electronic 
> infrastructure which increasingly underlies all aspects of daily 
> life--as "a work in progress"; as the "work" of a [ rant snipped here 
> ] as a bunch of half cooked proposals squirreled away in inaccessible 
> jargon and inaccessible blogs; and as a one two day event organized to 
> respond to an Internet calamity and then hijacked to support the interests
of precisely those who sponsored the calamity...

I don't focus on ICANN but as you (should) know I have been as critical as
anyone of the IGF, probably much more so, and I have also acknowledged the
shortcomings of NETmundial, but you have to weigh up the value of just
lambasting any imperfect process as irredeemably evil, against the potential
benefits of acknowledging that a start has been made, and working to improve
it.  The latter is my preferred approach.

--
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

From dave at difference.com.au  Fri Feb  6 21:07:15 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 10:07:15 +0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <00cf01d04233$ba397f40$2eac7dc0$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <5!
 4D3E398.8
  030603@eff.or g > <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <C7C046E1-8E30-4393-B388-47D682E0811F@difference.com.au> <00cf01d04233$ba397f40$2eac7dc0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42374A4C-F49E-498E-B936-98396F06EAD1@difference.com.au>


On 7 Feb 2015, at 1:38 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> David, in the below you do two things—give a screed on behalf of ICANN and identify a number of issues well worth further exploring outside of the hurly burly of a public email list.

	It was certainly not intended to be ‘a screed on behalf of ICANN’ - I thought I was very clear that I think ICANN has very significant accountability problems. The ICANN accountability resources I pointed you to make it fairly clear that ICANN has significant accountability issues.
	Just off the top of my head, its request for reconsideration process (its appeal mechanism) is broken, with I think under a 3% success rate, the step after that is a mandated mediation process in which the ICANN general counsels office acts as both one of the parties and administrator of the process (which of course is an intrinsic conflict of interest) and that works about as well as you might expect, and its external review of decisions process
	Rather, I was expressing my enthusiasm that after years of struggling against ICANNs accountability problems, we have a significant opportunity to fix some of them.

> Re: ICANN.  I consider ICANN to be an agency with a responsibility to pursue the global public interest.  Its internal accountability is of course important given that it has access to considerable funds (derived recurrently as a “tax” on global internet users). However, what I think is rather more important is how it structures its external accountability i.e. its accountability to global Internet users (which I have argued elsewhere is now effectively everyone in the world).

	Yes, absolutely. Though defining the global public interest is of course a difficult question, and a subject of some discussion within the ICANN community currently.
	And of course the issue of external accountability is a real one. There are mechanisms, and some of them work better than others. The structure within ICANN of the ALAC (At Large Advisory Committee) is designed to represent the interests of global Internet users, but opinions are divided as to how well it performs this function. That would be a useful discussion to have.
	The regular (every 3 years) independent review processes, including the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (that has currently gone through the process twice, so ICANN folk tend to refer to ATRT1 and ATRT2). As I said previously, they include a healthy mix of people outside the ICANN system (e.g. ATRT2 included the Australian Minister for Communications Stephen Conroy), and experienced ICANN insiders (e.g. ATRT2 also included Avri), and I feel they are effective (I was part of one of those review teams, the Security Stability and Resiliency Review Team). But while a detailed independent review every three years is one useful mechanism, it is clearly not sufficient in terms of providing accountability for specific decisions.

> I would be delighted to be pointed in the direction of materials describing how ICANN intends to facilitate the latter type of global external accountability within a commitment to democratic governance as this would be a useful contribution to the on-going discussion on how mechanisms to ensure democratic governance of and through the Internet might be framed.

	The ongoing discussion is significant, and spread across a number of places - I don’t think there is any place in which global external accountability is discussed separately to other accountability issues (such as ICANNs internal accountability, and accountability to users of services it provides (the IANA service has specific relationships with Registries, RIRs, IETF, etc). The link I gave you to the accountability and IANA transition processes has links to the various places in which discussion is taking place. It is a difficult process to follow, due to its scope, large number of participants, and

> I would further be delighted to engage with you or others in serious and in-depth discussion on the various additional issues of democracy, MSism, accountability, governance and so on that have been identified. Unfortunately to date no appropriate “neutral” venue or other circumstance has been forthcoming to enable and support such discussions. Perhaps as I mentioned in my earlier note, ICANN might be induced to divert some of its “public” funding to supporting such an activity which to my mind would clearly be in the broader public interest.

	I suspect ICANN would be reluctant to sponsor a significant effort focussed on broader governance issues, especially in the current climate in which the CEO is under some pressure to focus on iCANN and reign in the resources put towards broader Internet governance adventures such as NMI. The ICANN community was not particularly pleased at this attempted expansion of ICANNs role.
	I swear I am not trolling when I say that NMI is likely a potential funding source to support such as activity, though of course you might not consider an NMI funded (even if not NMI organised) process “neutral”. I would of course be willing to hear other suggestions.

	Regards
		David
> 
> M
> 
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 9:40 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> 
> On 6 Feb 2015, at 7:20 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the following questions in one or another form).
> 
> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some detail on what is meant by:
> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of the governed.
> 
>             I think you have the process backwards somewhat, Michael. For example, there is a really large, complex process looking very seriously at accountability mechanisms within ICANN right now. There are cross community working groups, multiple work streams, proposals and discussion flying around, and it is deeply intertwined with the IANA transition process. A lot of really significant accountability changes are being canvassed, such external review processes, mechanisms to remove board members, etc. For those civil society groups engaged with ICANN, this is occupying a great deal of our time. You are asking to fully understand the accountability mechanisms within complex organisations before you commit to becoming involved. I think if you wish to have good accountability within those structure, become involved and fight for it.
> 
> https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability
> 
>             And information about the accountability mechanisms that already exist is not hard to find at all. Want to know about accountability mechanisms within ICANN?
> Start here, spend a few hours reading, you’ll know more than most ICANN participants
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/accountability-en
> The ATRT reports are perhaps not the best place to start for an outsider, but they are well worth a read, with a LOT of information about ICANN accountability and transparency mechanisms and how they work in practice, from independent review processes that include both genuine outsiders and knowledgable ICANN insiders (Avri was on the second ATRT, and did a lot of great work).
> 
>             I don’t think there is a fundamental disagreement on the principles of accountability between JNC and groups like NCSG that are engaged with ICANN, but there is a profound gulf on tactics. For example, the JNC position on ICANN seems to be ‘we are unsure that ICANN is sufficiently accountable, so we will refuse to engage’. The end result is that most JNC comments on accountability within ICANN etc are not listened to, not because they are wrong in principle, but because they are misinformed, lacking the knowledge that comes from direct experience and relying on third hand reports. I recall last year, for example, conversations with you that made it clear that you had no idea at all that direct participants in ICANN policy processes had to lodge a statement of interest.
>             In NCSG you won’t find us saying many good things about ICANN accountability either, but the difference is that, having engaged directly with its accountability mechanisms and discovered first hand their problems, we are now (given the leverage of the IANA transition process) in a good position to push to change those accountability mechanisms for the better. We know what works, we know what doesn’t, we know how mechanisms will be subverted or weakened. Accountability isn’t a slogan, it is a battle front, and one on which we currently have a good chance to make some very solid gains.
>             Which isn’t to say that I feel that being the internal opposition is the only viable strategy. Rather, strategically we should have both an internal opposition and an external opposition, and they should work together. At the moment, JNC seems to spend a large amount of its effort on attacking civil society colleagues for acting as the internal opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory democracy”
> 
>             This is actually an area that deserves significant discussion. Is the model of democracy we want aggregative (in which case certainly multi-stakeholderism fails, but we have no good model for transnational aggregative democracy, nor is one likely to emerge IMO - and democracy should be more than the tyranny of the majority) or deliberative (in which case multi-stakeholderism can be seen as profoundly democratic, as it forces deliberation, but multi-stakeholderism models currently do a poor job of dealing with situations where deliberation fails to achieve consensus)? Is democracy about representing the views of the majority, or protecting the voice and rights of minorities? Is democracy about the voice of the people, or is it about justice for all?
>             These are not new debates. They are among the oldest of political debates, and we will continue to have them. There is no one defining right answer. Civil society should have a range of views and priorities. I admit that as I represent a civil rights organisation within most IG processes, my focus is on protection of rights for all, but that is my individual focus.
> 
>             My primary policy difference with JNC is simply that JNCs dialogue about democracy vs multistakeholderism pretty much entirely ignores the problem of anti-democratic governments. I literally cannot recall a single comment from JNC advocates that addresses the issue.
> 
> 
> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori have the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead role
> 
>             The whole point of multi-stakeholderism is that no one sector has a lead role.
> 
> 
> , how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.
> 
>             These are really good questions. I do not think there is a single simple answer. There ARE areas in which governments should have the primary public policy role. But there are areas in which they should not. There do need to be accountability mechanisms, but such mechanisms do need to evolve to deal with the issues that arise from specific processes. How do we broaden inclusivity of processes, especially ones (such as very technical processes) that have a high barrier to entry.
>             And the question of how we deal with inclusivity/representativity in the absence of anchored democratic processes in another issue that is important, but that is a big problem without a simple solution. Because transnational processes are always conducted in the absence of anchored democratic processes as long as there are major states that are not democratic. As I said above, my biggest policy disagreement with the JNC is how often it conflates ‘states’ and ‘democratic states’, such as the rhetoric supporting its push to retain article 35. It is naive and hypocritical not to up front address the issue that any time a JNC position supports a primary role for government, it strengthens authoritarian anti-democratic governments as well as democratically elected ones - and that is leaving aside the ‘neoliberal’ corporatist subversion of the international trade position of most democratically elected governments, which you’d think would be a JNC concern really.
> 
> I don't mean these questions argumentatively but rather these are some of the questions that need to be answered before any kind of discussion of these kinds can go forward.  (Simply "answering" them through the creation of "facts" in reality a la the NMI only makes the issues more fraught and difficult to address in reality although perhaps not in theory since the actors and actions involved tosses the theoretical underpinnings into stark relief.)
> 
>             I have some sympathy, though I think that we practically have to deal with processes that are happening as well. I would certainly support dialogue on issues such as how to address risks to democracy in mutti-stakeholder fora, how to promote democratic mechanisms in transnational fora that include powerful anti-democratic nations, etc. But I would argue that your frequent use of terms like democracy and accountability in cheap sloganeering is detrimental to that dialogue.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, it would be good if the evidently closed loop of self-reflexive IG think tanks etc. --the WEF/NMI, the Bildt Commission or whatever it's called, ICANN's various internal too-ing and fro-ings could use some of their expense account zillions to actually address some of these rather fundamental issues in a way that actually recognized the internal controversies and external oppositions.
> 
>             I can assure you that while some recent ICANN think tank exercises may have been exercises in internal group-think, the IANA and Accountability processes (for example) very much do recognise the internal controversies and external oppositions. And many other ICANN processes very much recognise the internal controversies.
> 
>             Regards
> 
>                         David
> 
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 1:42 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> On 5/02/2015 12:08 pm, David Allen wrote:
> 
> There is, and has been, an entirely fundamental divide, separating two camps within the civil society gathered here.  Without putting too fine a point on it, on the one side are those who see multi-stakeholderism as a complete solution; on the other side, democracy is the starting point.
> 
> If anyone will raise their hand and agree with that framing of the former perspective as encapsulating their views, then I guess you have framed it fairly.  If not (anyone?) then can I suggest a more balanced framing of that perspective: those who advocate for the development of multi-stakeholder models of democratic representation in global Internet governance in which governments do not a priori have the lead role (though in appropriate cases they may).
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150207/b46c6cd8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150207/b46c6cd8/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 dave at difference.com.au  Fri Feb  6 21:18:26 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 10:18:26 +0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <026001d04268$c3d67c30$4b837490$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <54D3E398.8030603@eff.org> <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <54D40808.8040000@eff.org> <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com> <54D51552.4060902@eff.org> <01a701d04247$7f98dca0$7eca95e0$@gmail.com> !
 <2DA93620
 FC07494C926D60 C8E3C2F1A801642B11@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <026001d04268$c3d67c30$4b837490$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C46D26FA-37EE-469C-AB6D-EB49E4C65D1A@difference.com.au>

I am not aware of any systematic research being performed on this process, though some participants in the process are academics and may well write about aspects of it.

Regards

David

On 7 Feb 2015, at 7:58 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting Wolfgang (and David pointed to this as well...
> 
> Is anyone doing systematic research on this particularly within a research
> protocol that reflects some of the issues currently being discussed on this
> list and elsewhere with respect to MS models?
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 2:09 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm
> Subject: AW: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> An interesting test case for a "new MSM" could become the process underway
> with the IANA Transition and ICANN accountability. This is "learning by
> doing" and procedures are emerging in a bottom up, open and transparent
> process.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein
> Gesendet: Fr 06.02.2015 21:00
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> As I've said before I personally would be delighted to explore with you or
> anyone else innovations in global Internet mediated governance.  I think
> this is particularly important and even necessary in our current historical
> moment given the challenges that the Internet transformations are
> introducing including through onrushing globalism, the quite general
> disillusionment with traditional forms of democratic representation, and the
> challenges to and seeming stalling or even retreat of effective democratic
> participation in governance in many parts of the world.
> 
> I personally think that it is an open question, but one very much worth
> serious examination as to how various alternative approaches to more broadly
> effective governance such as MSism might be enabled in the current context
> and if or how they might contribute to more effective democracy/democracies
> and democratic governance.
> 
> I think that this would be a most desirable and useful interim alternative
> to simply asserting the necessity, superiority and benefits of MSism and
> then proceeding to attempt to create highly contestible MS realities on the
> ground.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 11:26 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> On 5/02/2015 11:30 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
>> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that
>> anything I could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to
>> reply at length which I don't.  So just some quick points.
>> 
>> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered"
>> with similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't
>> point to anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and we'll
>> have a good set of MS models to show you...; circular and
>> self-reflexive arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D.
>> theses; that sort of thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000
>> years of building popular democracy and hardly sufficient (hopefully)
>> to persuade us to all stampede towards governance by unelected elites
>> unless you are already committed in that direction...
> 
> I knew I should have followed my better judgment and not replied.  Can we
> henceforth just save some time and accept that you are less open to
> exploring multi-stakeholder innovations in democratic global governance than
> other of us are, and leave it at that?  Rather than mischaracterising these
> efforts as promoting "governance by unelected elites" which long ago became
> tiresome.
> 
>> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model to
>> which you are asking the world to entrust the electronic
>> infrastructure which increasingly underlies all aspects of daily
>> life--as "a work in progress"; as the "work" of a [ rant snipped here
>> ] as a bunch of half cooked proposals squirreled away in inaccessible
>> jargon and inaccessible blogs; and as a one two day event organized to
>> respond to an Internet calamity and then hijacked to support the interests
> of precisely those who sponsored the calamity...
> 
> I don't focus on ICANN but as you (should) know I have been as critical as
> anyone of the IGF, probably much more so, and I have also acknowledged the
> shortcomings of NETmundial, but you have to weigh up the value of just
> lambasting any imperfect process as irredeemably evil, against the potential
> benefits of acknowledging that a start has been made, and working to improve
> it.  The latter is my preferred approach.
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150207/386bdd5a/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 dave at difference.com.au  Sat Feb  7 02:14:16 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 15:14:16 +0800
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <017f01d04243$fd822030$f8866090$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <54D40808.8040000@eff.org> <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxg4Xd+=ZGCatFoQeJvppNtD-s+ne8x8jDqfs_ixxzwSeQ@mail.gmail.com> <D0FA7690.14691%coffin@isoc.org> <14CFEBD9-1DE8-4A26-AE6E!
 -AFEA43B5
 406B@consensus .pro> <017f01d04243$fd822030$f8866090$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C497226F-7D1E-42C1-B3A9-6B4E7FB776A3@difference.com.au>

The IETF is not the RIRs. The IETF develops protocols, the RIRs do policy development.

I do not, in fact, regard the level of relevant technical knowledge required to participate effectively in IETF processes to be a problem, given the IETF develops technical standards rather than addressing broader policy issues. The RIRs are a different case.

I admit to being a bit baffled as to why the various social barriers to full participation in the IETF would preclude analysis of its formal accountability mechanisms.

I agree that the IETF processes for developing technical standards can not be assumed to be good processes for policy work - but then, no one actually does assume this, the RIRs and ICANN processes are different to the IETF ones for a various good reasons. That does not mean that the IETF processes are no worth studying for anyone interested in Internet governance or multi-stakeholder policy processes. Several processes that are widely used within multi-stakeholder organisations (for example, using Nominating Committees to select members of leadership groups) seem to have come via the IETF.

Regards

	David

On 7 Feb 2015, at 3:34 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for this Tim et al...
> 
> We've had this discussion before on the applicability of the ITEF experience
> to broader areas of (non) technical Internet Governance.
> 
> As I think I mentioned at the time, I would be interested in being pointed
> to either an analysis of the IEFT experience which developed a model of the
> processes involved at a sufficient level of generality that they could be
> assessed against a variety of external criteria such as democratic
> representivity, formal accountability, scalability, generalizability across
> issue areas etc.  (As I recall I was at an earlier time pointed to an
> academic thesis recounting the decision making methodology of the IETF but
> it was at such a level of specificity that it was impossible (at least for
> me) to draw any conclusions from this regarding the possibility of wider
> applications.) Alternatively/additionally I would be interested in seeing an
> analysis of the IETF experience which seriously looked at how generalizable
> that experience might be into other domain areas with quite different
> demographic, content associated, cultural and other characteristics.
> 
> As I mentioned in my reply to David (Cake) in the absence of such
> analyses/information as the above and looking at the IETF only from a very
> considerable distance I consider it to be something of a "walled garden"
> given what appear to the (invisible but very real) barriers to
> entry/participation based on level of technical skill/knowledge, cultural
> background, level of education, demography (a very skewed gender ratio)
> among others.  These barriers to entry are such as to fatally limit the
> direct generalizability of the IETF model (these barriers presumably could
> not and moreover one assumes, should not be repeated in other instances of
> MS implementations). They further suggest that given the particularity of
> the IETF experience few or no useful rules or processes can prima facie be
> identified for replication in other domain areas so as to achieve the
> benefits of MSism that are being ascribed to the IETF example.
> 
> My point being that in order for the example of the IETF to be useful as a
> basis for a more general argument in favour of MSism it has to be
> demonstrated that the experience of the IETF is generalizable across
> domains, demographies, cultures etc. I have yet to see any serious research,
> analysis or even argument that makes the case for such generalizability.
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 11:01 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jane Coffin
> Cc: Tim McGinnis; michael gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset=us-ascii
> 
> And from me too.
> 
> On 6 Feb 2015, at 19:48, Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> +1 to this.
>> 
>> On 2/6/15, 3:31 AM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Michael,
>>> 
>>> Must be brief as I am in an airport on my way to one of those 5 star
>>> hotels now.
>>> 
>>> Study the RIRs (or IETF) as models of BUTOC (bottom-up, open,
>>> transparent, consensus based) MSism.
>>> 
>>> They have 3+ decades of functioning experience to guide you.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/6/15, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hmmm...
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy
>>>> Malcolm
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:17 PM
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>>> 
>>>> On 5/02/2015 3:20 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>>> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most
>>>>> fundamental
>>>> questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific
>>>> answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have
>>>> presented the following questions in one or another form).
>>>> 
>>>> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that
>>>> anything I could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to
>>>> reply at length which I don't.  So just some quick points.
>>>> 
>>>> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered"
>>>> with
>>>> similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't
>>>> point to anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and
>>>> we'll have a good set of MS models to show you...; circular and
>>>> self-reflexive arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D.
>>>> theses; that sort of thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000
>>>> years of building popular democracy and hardly sufficient
>>>> (hopefully) to persuade us to all stampede towards governance by
>>>> unelected elites unless you are already committed in that
>>>> direction...
>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually
>>>>> give some
>>>> detail on what is meant by:
>>>>> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured,
>>>>> what are
>>>> the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know
>>>> the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being
>>>> asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we
>>>> all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided
>>>> that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding
>>>> with or without the consent of the governed.
>>>> 
>>>> Many of the fundamentals are covered in the NETmundial principles,
>>>> but the operationalisation of these principles remains a work in
>>>> progress.
>>>> For ICANN that work has been ongoing 17 years, for the IGF it has
>>>> been
>>>> 10 years... but the Westminster system took about 300 years to
>>>> develop to where it is, so your demand for a comprehensive blueprint
>>>> now seems a bit unreasonable.  Having said that, a number of us
>>>> including me have put forward some quite specific proposals, which I
>>>> can point you to.
>>>> The NETmundial meeting itself also shows what becomes possible where
>>>> the political will is there.
>>>> 
>>>> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model
>>>> to which you are asking the world to entrust the electronic
>>>> infrastructure which increasingly underlies all aspects of daily
>>>> life--as "a work in progress"; as the "work" of a thoroughly bloated
>>>> out of control agency living very high off the hog on their
>>>> accountable Internet tax revenue whose governance model on seems to
>>>> be to spend a zillion dollars ferrying anyone who seems to have an
>>>> interest to every possible exotic 5 star hotel location anywhere in
>>>> the world, wining and dining this thoroughly compromised army into
>>>> stupefaction and then calling that governance; as a bunch of half
>>>> cooked proposals squirreled away in inaccessible jargon and
>>>> inaccessible blogs; and as a one two day event organized to respond
>>>> to an Internet calamity and then hijacked to support the interests
>>>> of precisely those who sponsored the calamity...
>>>> hmmm....
>>>> 
>>>>> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D"
>>>>> word--what
>>>> exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models"
>>>> (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined
>>>> "participatory democracy"
>>>> 
>>>> There are reams of literature on this, have you read any of it?  Or
>>>> for an overview, see
>>>> 
>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-inte
>>>> rnet-
>>>> gov
>>>> ernance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3.
>>>> For the next IGF there is a proposal (on which I'm a advisor) to
>>>> hold a deliberative poll.  It doesn't mean that everyone in the
>>>> world has to be involved, it means that about 300 people who cover
>>>> all significantly affected perspectives should be involved.
>>>> 
>>>> [MG>] I (re)read the blog post you pointed to and what I got was a
>>>> rather repetitive set of circular definitions defining MSist
>>>> "democracy" as being "how MSism is currently operating".  So MSism
>>>> is fundamentally democratic because MSism is how democracy is
>>>> defined (according to the blogpost) ...
>>>> If
>>>> it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then by (my) definition
>>>> it must be a dog because I want it to be...
>>>> 
>>>>> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a
>>>>> priori have
>>>> the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the
>>>> lead role, how is their role determined, who decides who has the
>>>> lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those
>>>> alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable,
>>>> what are their internal processes of accountability in these
>>>> alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity
>>>> maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't
>>>> matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.
>>>> 
>>>> I posted about this yesterday in response to Parminder.
>>>> 
>>>> [MG>] Which as I recall was less an answer than another circular
>>>> argument... According to your post we resolve issues of
>>>> accountability and jurisdiction as between governments and
>>>> multistakeholder processes by developing additional multistakeholder
>>>> processes to address these issues and presumably we resolve issues
>>>> for governing those processes by developing further MS processes and
>>>> turtles on turtles as far as the eye can see (with nary a reference
>>>> to a democratic process or democratic accountability anywhere up or
>>>> down the line...
>>>> 
>>>> Quite frankly I'm still waiting for something on MSism with some
>>>> substance and depth to discuss.  One of the reasons for the
>>>> degeneration in the level of debate is that the debate is so
>>>> conceptually lopsided.  Without something serious to discuss
>>>> concerning what is meant by MSism and the MS model in broader
>>>> Internet Governance all that is possible is the verbal ping pong
>>>> which everyone is so bored with.
>>>> 
>>>> M
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>> https://eff.org
>>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>> 
>>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>> 
>>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> McTim
>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
> 	filename=signature.asc
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
> 	name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> 
> iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU1Q9fAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00SzkL/Rfn+xXgleErw6rU5QAfhB7P
> a9CxarWT8Lb6VjB0sVazsxwzxU/bhs5SA7v0iJyaDHUl/fOLyUsZGMPAYooFq82V
> ATOm92+OhOOtmZOAldEVqMzV9P0wHHPplArTI2+ErVDipXzVRCb08Q9/+t0udLp6
> D2SsrIsGFessaq/AlhgEB66v79Sp40syUIi+Qu83YEiFt63dnBW/hrIfShajsB+l
> Fhh0/LvwVr2rCIhV5hNBVYfUVDDkGT1fUd7UTTJpJeY5Y2NPVPBVRhABbs5o9H5W
> h5pWEkBUSje1lbigAB4y2pfNfLCJweSpwyLrKNF5WecxlsoHx/tiZbJavwKv7/aR
> fQ0/QBbwJ4PpLv7KTkPuTMpo+RE0zUFVpQXHBx5BN8SXrisPiBcb8A3LUQi5+lyT
> HbtHiM8qAOUVBnmiD4q1hY333dK3FfD6nj3ngdjBwA4dJDaLTOOm9nLvfXgtrYNf
> GXZiwUp3TyDfHiD73CziaEmyktlTJLG9lTgOFycArA==
> =V5I5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1--
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150207/60fdb5a7/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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Sat Feb  7 09:00:16 2015
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 09:00:16 -0500
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <42374A4C-F49E-498E-B936-98396F06EAD1@difference.com.au>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7  6501860$@gma i l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <5!
 4 D3E398.
 8 030603@eff.or g > <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <C7C046E1-8E30-4393-B388-47D682E0811F@difference.com.au> <00cf01d04233$ba397f40$2eac7dc0$@gmail.com> <42374A4C-F49E-498E-B936-98396F06EAD1@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <35A00BB6-3080-47F3-90A0-D24506BE2205@post.harvard.edu>

ICANN has had severe 'accountability' problems for years and years ... and years.  It has been broken and remains broken.  Perennially, its accountability is assailed, becomes a topic - and remains broken.  For years ... and years.

David (Allen)


On Feb 6, 2015, at 9:07 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> 
> On 7 Feb 2015, at 1:38 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> David, in the below you do two things—give a screed on behalf of ICANN and identify a number of issues well worth further exploring outside of the hurly burly of a public email list.
> 
> 	It was certainly not intended to be ‘a screed on behalf of ICANN’ - I thought I was very clear that I think ICANN has very significant accountability problems. The ICANN accountability resources I pointed you to make it fairly clear that ICANN has significant accountability issues. 
> 	Just off the top of my head, its request for reconsideration process (its appeal mechanism) is broken, with I think under a 3% success rate, the step after that is a mandated mediation process in which the ICANN general counsels office acts as both one of the parties and administrator of the process (which of course is an intrinsic conflict of interest) and that works about as well as you might expect, and its external review of decisions process 
> 	Rather, I was expressing my enthusiasm that after years of struggling against ICANNs accountability problems, we have a significant opportunity to fix some of them. 
> 
>> Re: ICANN.  I consider ICANN to be an agency with a responsibility to pursue the global public interest.  Its internal accountability is of course important given that it has access to considerable funds (derived recurrently as a “tax” on global internet users). However, what I think is rather more important is how it structures its external accountability i.e. its accountability to global Internet users (which I have argued elsewhere is now effectively everyone in the world). 
> 
> 	Yes, absolutely. Though defining the global public interest is of course a difficult question, and a subject of some discussion within the ICANN community currently. 
> 	And of course the issue of external accountability is a real one. There are mechanisms, and some of them work better than others. The structure within ICANN of the ALAC (At Large Advisory Committee) is designed to represent the interests of global Internet users, but opinions are divided as to how well it performs this function. That would be a useful discussion to have. 
> 	The regular (every 3 years) independent review processes, including the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (that has currently gone through the process twice, so ICANN folk tend to refer to ATRT1 and ATRT2). As I said previously, they include a healthy mix of people outside the ICANN system (e.g. ATRT2 included the Australian Minister for Communications Stephen Conroy), and experienced ICANN insiders (e.g. ATRT2 also included Avri), and I feel they are effective (I was part of one of those review teams, the Security Stability and Resiliency Review Team). But while a detailed independent review every three years is one useful mechanism, it is clearly not sufficient in terms of providing accountability for specific decisions. 
> 
>> I would be delighted to be pointed in the direction of materials describing how ICANN intends to facilitate the latter type of global external accountability within a commitment to democratic governance as this would be a useful contribution to the on-going discussion on how mechanisms to ensure democratic governance of and through the Internet might be framed.
> 
> 	The ongoing discussion is significant, and spread across a number of places - I don’t think there is any place in which global external accountability is discussed separately to other accountability issues (such as ICANNs internal accountability, and accountability to users of services it provides (the IANA service has specific relationships with Registries, RIRs, IETF, etc). The link I gave you to the accountability and IANA transition processes has links to the various places in which discussion is taking place. It is a difficult process to follow, due to its scope, large number of participants, and 
> 
>> I would further be delighted to engage with you or others in serious and in-depth discussion on the various additional issues of democracy, MSism, accountability, governance and so on that have been identified. Unfortunately to date no appropriate “neutral” venue or other circumstance has been forthcoming to enable and support such discussions. Perhaps as I mentioned in my earlier note, ICANN might be induced to divert some of its “public” funding to supporting such an activity which to my mind would clearly be in the broader public interest.
> 
> 	I suspect ICANN would be reluctant to sponsor a significant effort focussed on broader governance issues, especially in the current climate in which the CEO is under some pressure to focus on iCANN and reign in the resources put towards broader Internet governance adventures such as NMI. The ICANN community was not particularly pleased at this attempted expansion of ICANNs role. 
> 	I swear I am not trolling when I say that NMI is likely a potential funding source to support such as activity, though of course you might not consider an NMI funded (even if not NMI organised) process “neutral”. I would of course be willing to hear other suggestions. 
> 
> 	Regards
> 		David
>>  
>> M
>>  
>> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 9:40 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
>> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>  
>>  
>> On 6 Feb 2015, at 7:20 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the following questions in one or another form).  
>> 
>> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some detail on what is meant by:
>> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of the governed.
>>  
>>             I think you have the process backwards somewhat, Michael. For example, there is a really large, complex process looking very seriously at accountability mechanisms within ICANN right now. There are cross community working groups, multiple work streams, proposals and discussion flying around, and it is deeply intertwined with the IANA transition process. A lot of really significant accountability changes are being canvassed, such external review processes, mechanisms to remove board members, etc. For those civil society groups engaged with ICANN, this is occupying a great deal of our time. You are asking to fully understand the accountability mechanisms within complex organisations before you commit to becoming involved. I think if you wish to have good accountability within those structure, become involved and fight for it. 
>>  
>> https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability
>>  
>>             And information about the accountability mechanisms that already exist is not hard to find at all. Want to know about accountability mechanisms within ICANN?
>> Start here, spend a few hours reading, you’ll know more than most ICANN participants
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/accountability-en
>> The ATRT reports are perhaps not the best place to start for an outsider, but they are well worth a read, with a LOT of information about ICANN accountability and transparency mechanisms and how they work in practice, from independent review processes that include both genuine outsiders and knowledgable ICANN insiders (Avri was on the second ATRT, and did a lot of great work). 
>>  
>>             I don’t think there is a fundamental disagreement on the principles of accountability between JNC and groups like NCSG that are engaged with ICANN, but there is a profound gulf on tactics. For example, the JNC position on ICANN seems to be ‘we are unsure that ICANN is sufficiently accountable, so we will refuse to engage’. The end result is that most JNC comments on accountability within ICANN etc are not listened to, not because they are wrong in principle, but because they are misinformed, lacking the knowledge that comes from direct experience and relying on third hand reports. I recall last year, for example, conversations with you that made it clear that you had no idea at all that direct participants in ICANN policy processes had to lodge a statement of interest. 
>>             In NCSG you won’t find us saying many good things about ICANN accountability either, but the difference is that, having engaged directly with its accountability mechanisms and discovered first hand their problems, we are now (given the leverage of the IANA transition process) in a good position to push to change those accountability mechanisms for the better. We know what works, we know what doesn’t, we know how mechanisms will be subverted or weakened. Accountability isn’t a slogan, it is a battle front, and one on which we currently have a good chance to make some very solid gains. 
>>             Which isn’t to say that I feel that being the internal opposition is the only viable strategy. Rather, strategically we should have both an internal opposition and an external opposition, and they should work together. At the moment, JNC seems to spend a large amount of its effort on attacking civil society colleagues for acting as the internal opposition. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory democracy”
>>  
>>             This is actually an area that deserves significant discussion. Is the model of democracy we want aggregative (in which case certainly multi-stakeholderism fails, but we have no good model for transnational aggregative democracy, nor is one likely to emerge IMO - and democracy should be more than the tyranny of the majority) or deliberative (in which case multi-stakeholderism can be seen as profoundly democratic, as it forces deliberation, but multi-stakeholderism models currently do a poor job of dealing with situations where deliberation fails to achieve consensus)? Is democracy about representing the views of the majority, or protecting the voice and rights of minorities? Is democracy about the voice of the people, or is it about justice for all?
>>             These are not new debates. They are among the oldest of political debates, and we will continue to have them. There is no one defining right answer. Civil society should have a range of views and priorities. I admit that as I represent a civil rights organisation within most IG processes, my focus is on protection of rights for all, but that is my individual focus. 
>>  
>>             My primary policy difference with JNC is simply that JNCs dialogue about democracy vs multistakeholderism pretty much entirely ignores the problem of anti-democratic governments. I literally cannot recall a single comment from JNC advocates that addresses the issue. 
>> 
>> 
>> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori have the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead role
>>  
>>             The whole point of multi-stakeholderism is that no one sector has a lead role. 
>> 
>> 
>> , how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.
>>  
>>             These are really good questions. I do not think there is a single simple answer. There ARE areas in which governments should have the primary public policy role. But there are areas in which they should not. There do need to be accountability mechanisms, but such mechanisms do need to evolve to deal with the issues that arise from specific processes. How do we broaden inclusivity of processes, especially ones (such as very technical processes) that have a high barrier to entry. 
>>             And the question of how we deal with inclusivity/representativity in the absence of anchored democratic processes in another issue that is important, but that is a big problem without a simple solution. Because transnational processes are always conducted in the absence of anchored democratic processes as long as there are major states that are not democratic. As I said above, my biggest policy disagreement with the JNC is how often it conflates ‘states’ and ‘democratic states’, such as the rhetoric supporting its push to retain article 35. It is naive and hypocritical not to up front address the issue that any time a JNC position supports a primary role for government, it strengthens authoritarian anti-democratic governments as well as democratically elected ones - and that is leaving aside the ‘neoliberal’ corporatist subversion of the international trade position of most democratically elected governments, which you’d think would be a JNC concern really. 
>>  
>> I don't mean these questions argumentatively but rather these are some of the questions that need to be answered before any kind of discussion of these kinds can go forward.  (Simply "answering" them through the creation of "facts" in reality a la the NMI only makes the issues more fraught and difficult to address in reality although perhaps not in theory since the actors and actions involved tosses the theoretical underpinnings into stark relief.)
>>  
>>             I have some sympathy, though I think that we practically have to deal with processes that are happening as well. I would certainly support dialogue on issues such as how to address risks to democracy in mutti-stakeholder fora, how to promote democratic mechanisms in transnational fora that include powerful anti-democratic nations, etc. But I would argue that your frequent use of terms like democracy and accountability in cheap sloganeering is detrimental to that dialogue. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> BTW, it would be good if the evidently closed loop of self-reflexive IG think tanks etc. --the WEF/NMI, the Bildt Commission or whatever it's called, ICANN's various internal too-ing and fro-ings could use some of their expense account zillions to actually address some of these rather fundamental issues in a way that actually recognized the internal controversies and external oppositions.
>>  
>>             I can assure you that while some recent ICANN think tank exercises may have been exercises in internal group-think, the IANA and Accountability processes (for example) very much do recognise the internal controversies and external oppositions. And many other ICANN processes very much recognise the internal controversies.
>>  
>>             Regards
>>  
>>                         David
>> 
>> 
>> M 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 1:42 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> On 5/02/2015 12:08 pm, David Allen wrote:
>> 
>> There is, and has been, an entirely fundamental divide, separating two camps within the civil society gathered here.  Without putting too fine a point on it, on the one side are those who see multi-stakeholderism as a complete solution; on the other side, democracy is the starting point.
>> 
>> If anyone will raise their hand and agree with that framing of the former perspective as encapsulating their views, then I guess you have framed it fairly.  If not (anyone?) then can I suggest a more balanced framing of that perspective: those who advocate for the development of multi-stakeholder models of democratic representation in global Internet governance in which governments do not a priori have the lead role (though in appropriate cases they may).
>> 
>> --
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150207/fd968401/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Sat Feb  7 09:11:11 2015
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 09:11:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <C497226F-7D1E-42C1-B3A9-6B4E7FB776A3@difference.com.au>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com> <A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu> <061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com> <54D40808.8040000@eff.org> <07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxg4Xd+=ZGCatFoQeJvppNtD-s+ne8x8jDqfs_ixxzwSeQ@mail.gmail.com> <D0FA7690.14691%coffin@isoc.org> <14CFEBD9-1DE8-4A26-AE6E!
 - AFEA43B
 5 406B@consensus .pro> <017f01d04243$fd822030$f8866090$@gmail.com> <C497226F-7D1E-42C1-B3A9-6B4E7FB776A3@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <09E26B71-4271-43CC-9744-EA61987777D6@post.harvard.edu>

Though I am not always a fan of Lessig's "Code is law," there can be relevance here.  Standards do - unavoidably - impact, even effectively dictate, policy.  Sometimes in most pernicious ways.

David (Allen)


On Feb 7, 2015, at 2:14 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> The IETF is not the RIRs. The IETF develops protocols, the RIRs do policy development.
> 
> I do not, in fact, regard the level of relevant technical knowledge required to participate effectively in IETF processes to be a problem, given the IETF develops technical standards rather than addressing broader policy issues. The RIRs are a different case.
> 
> I admit to being a bit baffled as to why the various social barriers to full participation in the IETF would preclude analysis of its formal accountability mechanisms.
> 
> I agree that the IETF processes for developing technical standards can not be assumed to be good processes for policy work - but then, no one actually does assume this, the RIRs and ICANN processes are different to the IETF ones for a various good reasons. That does not mean that the IETF processes are no worth studying for anyone interested in Internet governance or multi-stakeholder policy processes. Several processes that are widely used within multi-stakeholder organisations (for example, using Nominating Committees to select members of leadership groups) seem to have come via the IETF.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 	David
> 
> On 7 Feb 2015, at 3:34 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for this Tim et al...
>> 
>> We've had this discussion before on the applicability of the ITEF experience
>> to broader areas of (non) technical Internet Governance.
>> 
>> As I think I mentioned at the time, I would be interested in being pointed
>> to either an analysis of the IEFT experience which developed a model of the
>> processes involved at a sufficient level of generality that they could be
>> assessed against a variety of external criteria such as democratic
>> representivity, formal accountability, scalability, generalizability across
>> issue areas etc.  (As I recall I was at an earlier time pointed to an
>> academic thesis recounting the decision making methodology of the IETF but
>> it was at such a level of specificity that it was impossible (at least for
>> me) to draw any conclusions from this regarding the possibility of wider
>> applications.) Alternatively/additionally I would be interested in seeing an
>> analysis of the IETF experience which seriously looked at how generalizable
>> that experience might be into other domain areas with quite different
>> demographic, content associated, cultural and other characteristics.
>> 
>> As I mentioned in my reply to David (Cake) in the absence of such
>> analyses/information as the above and looking at the IETF only from a very
>> considerable distance I consider it to be something of a "walled garden"
>> given what appear to the (invisible but very real) barriers to
>> entry/participation based on level of technical skill/knowledge, cultural
>> background, level of education, demography (a very skewed gender ratio)
>> among others.  These barriers to entry are such as to fatally limit the
>> direct generalizability of the IETF model (these barriers presumably could
>> not and moreover one assumes, should not be repeated in other instances of
>> MS implementations). They further suggest that given the particularity of
>> the IETF experience few or no useful rules or processes can prima facie be
>> identified for replication in other domain areas so as to achieve the
>> benefits of MSism that are being ascribed to the IETF example.
>> 
>> My point being that in order for the example of the IETF to be useful as a
>> basis for a more general argument in favour of MSism it has to be
>> demonstrated that the experience of the IETF is generalizable across
>> domains, demographies, cultures etc. I have yet to see any serious research,
>> analysis or even argument that makes the case for such generalizability.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro]
>> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 11:01 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jane Coffin
>> Cc: Tim McGinnis; michael gurstein
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> 
>> --Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> 	charset=us-ascii
>> 
>> And from me too.
>> 
>> On 6 Feb 2015, at 19:48, Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1 to this.
>>> 
>>> On 2/6/15, 3:31 AM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Michael,
>>>> 
>>>> Must be brief as I am in an airport on my way to one of those 5 star
>>>> hotels now.
>>>> 
>>>> Study the RIRs (or IETF) as models of BUTOC (bottom-up, open,
>>>> transparent, consensus based) MSism.
>>>> 
>>>> They have 3+ decades of functioning experience to guide you.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 2/6/15, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hmmm...
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy
>>>>> Malcolm
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:17 PM
>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/02/2015 3:20 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>>>> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most
>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>> questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific
>>>>> answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have
>>>>> presented the following questions in one or another form).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that
>>>>> anything I could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to
>>>>> reply at length which I don't.  So just some quick points.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered"
>>>>> with
>>>>> similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't
>>>>> point to anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and
>>>>> we'll have a good set of MS models to show you...; circular and
>>>>> self-reflexive arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D.
>>>>> theses; that sort of thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000
>>>>> years of building popular democracy and hardly sufficient
>>>>> (hopefully) to persuade us to all stampede towards governance by
>>>>> unelected elites unless you are already committed in that
>>>>> direction...
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually
>>>>>> give some
>>>>> detail on what is meant by:
>>>>>> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured,
>>>>>> what are
>>>>> the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know
>>>>> the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being
>>>>> asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we
>>>>> all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided
>>>>> that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding
>>>>> with or without the consent of the governed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Many of the fundamentals are covered in the NETmundial principles,
>>>>> but the operationalisation of these principles remains a work in
>>>>> progress.
>>>>> For ICANN that work has been ongoing 17 years, for the IGF it has
>>>>> been
>>>>> 10 years... but the Westminster system took about 300 years to
>>>>> develop to where it is, so your demand for a comprehensive blueprint
>>>>> now seems a bit unreasonable.  Having said that, a number of us
>>>>> including me have put forward some quite specific proposals, which I
>>>>> can point you to.
>>>>> The NETmundial meeting itself also shows what becomes possible where
>>>>> the political will is there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model
>>>>> to which you are asking the world to entrust the electronic
>>>>> infrastructure which increasingly underlies all aspects of daily
>>>>> life--as "a work in progress"; as the "work" of a thoroughly bloated
>>>>> out of control agency living very high off the hog on their
>>>>> accountable Internet tax revenue whose governance model on seems to
>>>>> be to spend a zillion dollars ferrying anyone who seems to have an
>>>>> interest to every possible exotic 5 star hotel location anywhere in
>>>>> the world, wining and dining this thoroughly compromised army into
>>>>> stupefaction and then calling that governance; as a bunch of half
>>>>> cooked proposals squirreled away in inaccessible jargon and
>>>>> inaccessible blogs; and as a one two day event organized to respond
>>>>> to an Internet calamity and then hijacked to support the interests
>>>>> of precisely those who sponsored the calamity...
>>>>> hmmm....
>>>>> 
>>>>>> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D"
>>>>>> word--what
>>>>> exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models"
>>>>> (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined
>>>>> "participatory democracy"
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are reams of literature on this, have you read any of it?  Or
>>>>> for an overview, see
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-inte
>>>>> rnet-
>>>>> gov
>>>>> ernance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3.
>>>>> For the next IGF there is a proposal (on which I'm a advisor) to
>>>>> hold a deliberative poll.  It doesn't mean that everyone in the
>>>>> world has to be involved, it means that about 300 people who cover
>>>>> all significantly affected perspectives should be involved.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [MG>] I (re)read the blog post you pointed to and what I got was a
>>>>> rather repetitive set of circular definitions defining MSist
>>>>> "democracy" as being "how MSism is currently operating".  So MSism
>>>>> is fundamentally democratic because MSism is how democracy is
>>>>> defined (according to the blogpost) ...
>>>>> If
>>>>> it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then by (my) definition
>>>>> it must be a dog because I want it to be...
>>>>> 
>>>>>> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a
>>>>>> priori have
>>>>> the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the
>>>>> lead role, how is their role determined, who decides who has the
>>>>> lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those
>>>>> alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable,
>>>>> what are their internal processes of accountability in these
>>>>> alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity
>>>>> maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't
>>>>> matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I posted about this yesterday in response to Parminder.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [MG>] Which as I recall was less an answer than another circular
>>>>> argument... According to your post we resolve issues of
>>>>> accountability and jurisdiction as between governments and
>>>>> multistakeholder processes by developing additional multistakeholder
>>>>> processes to address these issues and presumably we resolve issues
>>>>> for governing those processes by developing further MS processes and
>>>>> turtles on turtles as far as the eye can see (with nary a reference
>>>>> to a democratic process or democratic accountability anywhere up or
>>>>> down the line...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Quite frankly I'm still waiting for something on MSism with some
>>>>> substance and depth to discuss.  One of the reasons for the
>>>>> degeneration in the level of debate is that the debate is so
>>>>> conceptually lopsided.  Without something serious to discuss
>>>>> concerning what is meant by MSism and the MS model in broader
>>>>> Internet Governance all that is possible is the verbal ping pong
>>>>> which everyone is so bored with.
>>>>> 
>>>>> M
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>>> https://eff.org
>>>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>>> 
>>>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> McTim
>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> --Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>> 	filename=signature.asc
>> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
>> 	name=signature.asc
>> Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>> 
>> iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU1Q9fAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00SzkL/Rfn+xXgleErw6rU5QAfhB7P
>> a9CxarWT8Lb6VjB0sVazsxwzxU/bhs5SA7v0iJyaDHUl/fOLyUsZGMPAYooFq82V
>> ATOm92+OhOOtmZOAldEVqMzV9P0wHHPplArTI2+ErVDipXzVRCb08Q9/+t0udLp6
>> D2SsrIsGFessaq/AlhgEB66v79Sp40syUIi+Qu83YEiFt63dnBW/hrIfShajsB+l
>> Fhh0/LvwVr2rCIhV5hNBVYfUVDDkGT1fUd7UTTJpJeY5Y2NPVPBVRhABbs5o9H5W
>> h5pWEkBUSje1lbigAB4y2pfNfLCJweSpwyLrKNF5WecxlsoHx/tiZbJavwKv7/aR
>> fQ0/QBbwJ4PpLv7KTkPuTMpo+RE0zUFVpQXHBx5BN8SXrisPiBcb8A3LUQi5+lyT
>> HbtHiM8qAOUVBnmiD4q1hY333dK3FfD6nj3ngdjBwA4dJDaLTOOm9nLvfXgtrYNf
>> GXZiwUp3TyDfHiD73CziaEmyktlTJLG9lTgOFycArA==
>> =V5I5
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> 
>> --Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1--
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Feb  7 10:25:36 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 07:25:36 -0800
Subject: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <CAB82nKS4HYYtBi=edcaZAHXxTyvR=-C9P2OAGxk1wxJ_2UOp=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
	<007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>	<009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
	<54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<20150131180341.527f3a62@quill>	<14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<20150201083418.086b8607@quill>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<54CF483B.2060304@acm.org>	<F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au>
	<00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com>	<FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au>
	<040b01d0416e$7c51ad80$74f50880$@gmail.com>	<A658497B-06CA-493C-B6E3-26C0A816A82A@post.harvard.edu>
	<061801d0419a$70cb3900$5261ab00$@gmail.com>	<54D40808.8040000@eff.org>
	<07d701d041de$bbf90a30$33eb1e90$@gmail.com>	<CACAaNxg4Xd+=ZGCatFoQeJvppNtD-s+ne8x8jDqfs_ixxzwSeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0FA7690.14691%coffin@isoc.org>	<017f01d04243$fd822030$f8866090$@gmail.com>
	<C4 97226F-7D1E-42C1-B3A9-6B4E7FB776A3@difference.com.au> <CAB82nKS4HYYtBi=edcaZAHXxTyvR=-C9P2OAGxk1wxJ_2UOp=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <03f301d042ea$53130400$f9390c00$@gmail.com>

My point is a methodological one… In attempting to transfer inferences from one case to another case as you and others seem repeatedly to be attempting to do in the case of MS processes, the greater the number of points of similarity the stronger the case can then be made for making the inference (and obversely the greater the number of points of dissimilarity the weaker the case).  

 

I was simply pointing out that in attempting to draw inferences from the IETF (or the RIR’s) to the larger domains of Internet Governance the points of similarity are relatively few and the points of dissimilarity are relatively great (and of considerable significance (for example inclusiveness) in the specific context where the argument by inference is attempting to be made).

 

Which BTW is the reason for my question concerning systematic (and neutral) analysis of the IETF (and of the ICANN IANA) activities.  If you are trying to make the argument by comparison (or inference) that the lessons/models of the IETF can be transferred into other domains it always helps to have some evidence, otherwise folks might think you were being driven by blind faith (or ideology J

 

M

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
Date: Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>, Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org>, Tim McGinnis <dogwallah at gmail.com>


The IETF is not the RIRs. The IETF develops protocols, the RIRs do policy development.

I do not, in fact, regard the level of relevant technical knowledge required to participate effectively in IETF processes to be a problem, given the IETF develops technical standards rather than addressing broader policy issues. The RIRs are a different case.

I admit to being a bit baffled as to why the various social barriers to full participation in the IETF would preclude analysis of its formal accountability mechanisms.

I agree that the IETF processes for developing technical standards can not be assumed to be good processes for policy work - but then, no one actually does assume this, the RIRs and ICANN processes are different to the IETF ones for a various good reasons. That does not mean that the IETF processes are no worth studying for anyone interested in Internet governance or multi-stakeholder policy processes. Several processes that are widely used within multi-stakeholder organisations (for example, using Nominating Committees to select members of leadership groups) seem to have come via the IETF.

Regards

        David


On 7 Feb 2015, at 3:34 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for this Tim et al...
>
> We've had this discussion before on the applicability of the ITEF experience
> to broader areas of (non) technical Internet Governance.
>
> As I think I mentioned at the time, I would be interested in being pointed
> to either an analysis of the IEFT experience which developed a model of the
> processes involved at a sufficient level of generality that they could be
> assessed against a variety of external criteria such as democratic
> representivity, formal accountability, scalability, generalizability across
> issue areas etc.  (As I recall I was at an earlier time pointed to an
> academic thesis recounting the decision making methodology of the IETF but
> it was at such a level of specificity that it was impossible (at least for
> me) to draw any conclusions from this regarding the possibility of wider
> applications.) Alternatively/additionally I would be interested in seeing an
> analysis of the IETF experience which seriously looked at how generalizable
> that experience might be into other domain areas with quite different
> demographic, content associated, cultural and other characteristics.
>
> As I mentioned in my reply to David (Cake) in the absence of such
> analyses/information as the above and looking at the IETF only from a very
> considerable distance I consider it to be something of a "walled garden"
> given what appear to the (invisible but very real) barriers to
> entry/participation based on level of technical skill/knowledge, cultural
> background, level of education, demography (a very skewed gender ratio)
> among others.  These barriers to entry are such as to fatally limit the
> direct generalizability of the IETF model (these barriers presumably could
> not and moreover one assumes, should not be repeated in other instances of
> MS implementations). They further suggest that given the particularity of
> the IETF experience few or no useful rules or processes can prima facie be
> identified for replication in other domain areas so as to achieve the
> benefits of MSism that are being ascribed to the IETF example.
>
> My point being that in order for the example of the IETF to be useful as a
> basis for a more general argument in favour of MSism it has to be
> demonstrated that the experience of the IETF is generalizable across
> domains, demographies, cultures etc. I have yet to see any serious research,
> analysis or even argument that makes the case for such generalizability.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 11:01 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jane Coffin
> Cc: Tim McGinnis; michael gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>
>
> --Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type: text/plain;
>       charset=us-ascii
>
> And from me too.
>
> On 6 Feb 2015, at 19:48, Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 to this.
>>
>> On 2/6/15, 3:31 AM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> Must be brief as I am in an airport on my way to one of those 5 star
>>> hotels now.
>>>
>>> Study the RIRs (or IETF) as models of BUTOC (bottom-up, open,
>>> transparent, consensus based) MSism.
>>>
>>> They have 3+ decades of functioning experience to guide you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/6/15, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hmmm...
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy
>>>> Malcolm
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:17 PM
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>>>>
>>>> On 5/02/2015 3:20 pm, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>>> Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most
>>>>> fundamental
>>>> questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific
>>>> answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have
>>>> presented the following questions in one or another form).
>>>>
>>>> Each time you've asked you've been answered, so I'm not sure that
>>>> anything I could say would satisfy you, even if I had the time to
>>>> reply at length which I don't.  So just some quick points.
>>>>
>>>> [MG>] and a few in return... (and yes, each time I've been "answered"
>>>> with
>>>> similar statements as below i.e. statements of the "well we can't
>>>> point to anything right now but come back in xxx years or so and
>>>> we'll have a good set of MS models to show you...; circular and
>>>> self-reflexive arguments/definitions;  pointing to unpublished Ph.D.
>>>> theses; that sort of thing... hardly the stuff for replacing 3000
>>>> years of building popular democracy and hardly sufficient
>>>> (hopefully) to persuade us to all stampede towards governance by
>>>> unelected elites unless you are already committed in that
>>>> direction...
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually
>>>>> give some
>>>> detail on what is meant by:
>>>>> a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured,
>>>>> what are
>>>> the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know
>>>> the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being
>>>> asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we
>>>> all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided
>>>> that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding
>>>> with or without the consent of the governed.
>>>>
>>>> Many of the fundamentals are covered in the NETmundial principles,
>>>> but the operationalisation of these principles remains a work in
>>>> progress.
>>>> For ICANN that work has been ongoing 17 years, for the IGF it has
>>>> been
>>>> 10 years... but the Westminster system took about 300 years to
>>>> develop to where it is, so your demand for a comprehensive blueprint
>>>> now seems a bit unreasonable.  Having said that, a number of us
>>>> including me have put forward some quite specific proposals, which I
>>>> can point you to.
>>>> The NETmundial meeting itself also shows what becomes possible where
>>>> the political will is there.
>>>>
>>>> [MG>] This is the best you can do? Describing the governance model
>>>> to which you are asking the world to entrust the electronic
>>>> infrastructure which increasingly underlies all aspects of daily
>>>> life--as "a work in progress"; as the "work" of a thoroughly bloated
>>>> out of control agency living very high off the hog on their
>>>> accountable Internet tax revenue whose governance model on seems to
>>>> be to spend a zillion dollars ferrying anyone who seems to have an
>>>> interest to every possible exotic 5 star hotel location anywhere in
>>>> the world, wining and dining this thoroughly compromised army into
>>>> stupefaction and then calling that governance; as a bunch of half
>>>> cooked proposals squirreled away in inaccessible jargon and
>>>> inaccessible blogs; and as a one two day event organized to respond
>>>> to an Internet calamity and then hijacked to support the interests
>>>> of precisely those who sponsored the calamity...
>>>> hmmm....
>>>>
>>>>> b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D"
>>>>> word--what
>>>> exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models"
>>>> (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined
>>>> "participatory democracy"
>>>>
>>>> There are reams of literature on this, have you read any of it?  Or
>>>> for an overview, see
>>>>
>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-inte
>>>> rnet-
>>>> gov
>>>> ernance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3.
>>>> For the next IGF there is a proposal (on which I'm a advisor) to
>>>> hold a deliberative poll.  It doesn't mean that everyone in the
>>>> world has to be involved, it means that about 300 people who cover
>>>> all significantly affected perspectives should be involved.
>>>>
>>>> [MG>] I (re)read the blog post you pointed to and what I got was a
>>>> rather repetitive set of circular definitions defining MSist
>>>> "democracy" as being "how MSism is currently operating".  So MSism
>>>> is fundamentally democratic because MSism is how democracy is
>>>> defined (according to the blogpost) ...
>>>> If
>>>> it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then by (my) definition
>>>> it must be a dog because I want it to be...
>>>>
>>>>> c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a
>>>>> priori have
>>>> the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the
>>>> lead role, how is their role determined, who decides who has the
>>>> lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those
>>>> alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable,
>>>> what are their internal processes of accountability in these
>>>> alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity
>>>> maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't
>>>> matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.
>>>>
>>>> I posted about this yesterday in response to Parminder.
>>>>
>>>> [MG>] Which as I recall was less an answer than another circular
>>>> argument... According to your post we resolve issues of
>>>> accountability and jurisdiction as between governments and
>>>> multistakeholder processes by developing additional multistakeholder
>>>> processes to address these issues and presumably we resolve issues
>>>> for governing those processes by developing further MS processes and
>>>> turtles on turtles as far as the eye can see (with nary a reference
>>>> to a democratic process or democratic accountability anywhere up or
>>>> down the line...
>>>>
>>>> Quite frankly I'm still waiting for something on MSism with some
>>>> substance and depth to discuss.  One of the reasons for the
>>>> degeneration in the level of debate is that the debate is so
>>>> conceptually lopsided.  Without something serious to discuss
>>>> concerning what is meant by MSism and the MS model in broader
>>>> Internet Governance all that is possible is the verbal ping pong
>>>> which everyone is so bored with.
>>>>
>>>> M
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>> https://eff.org
>>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>>
>>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161> 
>>>>
>>>> :: 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> McTim
>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> --Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>       filename=signature.asc
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
>       name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>
> iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU1Q9fAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00SzkL/Rfn+xXgleErw6rU5QAfhB7P
> a9CxarWT8Lb6VjB0sVazsxwzxU/bhs5SA7v0iJyaDHUl/fOLyUsZGMPAYooFq82V
> ATOm92+OhOOtmZOAldEVqMzV9P0wHHPplArTI2+ErVDipXzVRCb08Q9/+t0udLp6
> D2SsrIsGFessaq/AlhgEB66v79Sp40syUIi+Qu83YEiFt63dnBW/hrIfShajsB+l
> Fhh0/LvwVr2rCIhV5hNBVYfUVDDkGT1fUd7UTTJpJeY5Y2NPVPBVRhABbs5o9H5W
> h5pWEkBUSje1lbigAB4y2pfNfLCJweSpwyLrKNF5WecxlsoHx/tiZbJavwKv7/aR
> fQ0/QBbwJ4PpLv7KTkPuTMpo+RE0zUFVpQXHBx5BN8SXrisPiBcb8A3LUQi5+lyT
> HbtHiM8qAOUVBnmiD4q1hY333dK3FfD6nj3ngdjBwA4dJDaLTOOm9nLvfXgtrYNf
> GXZiwUp3TyDfHiD73CziaEmyktlTJLG9lTgOFycArA==
> =V5I5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --Apple-Mail=_4B3144BC-8AF6-42AD-8E66-8DFE7F5B84B1--
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150207/411bcd5f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ymshana2003 at gmail.com  Sat Feb  7 15:44:45 2015
From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (ymshana2003)
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 22:44:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
Message-ID: <y03k1dgwqnqnk66sxn4cnela.1423341885258@email.android.com>

Ok ...
It is pleasing to ser that a lot has been said about 'accountability' and 'transparency' in ICANN and itd processes and ....how the ICANN Board makes decisions ...including the use of funds etc. 

I asked a question in yr 2005 about Which Law or Laws will be applicable to ICANN processes etc. ..that was ehen the PDP was in full swing and I was serving in the ccNSO....that question was shelved at that Level of ICANN structure

. It is now a Decade gone when issues such as Accountability and Transparency are coming up when the Corporation has grown roots into the rock!?! 

The possibile avenue to straighten issues is by getting out of the box and seek legal means if there is dissatisfaction or iltreatment since ICANN is the Player and Refree at thr same time.

That is my humble opinion with no fear or favour.

Kind regards

Yassin Mshana


Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> 
Date:07/02/2015  16:00  (GMT+02:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum 

ICANN has had severe 'accountability' problems for years and years ... and years.  It has been broken and remains broken.  Perennially, its accountability is assailed, becomes a topic - and remains broken.  For years ... and years.

David (Allen)


On Feb 6, 2015, at 9:07 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:


On 7 Feb 2015, at 1:38 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

David, in the below you do two things—give a screed on behalf of ICANN and identify a number of issues well worth further exploring outside of the hurly burly of a public email list.

	It was certainly not intended to be ‘a screed on behalf of ICANN’ - I thought I was very clear that I think ICANN has very significant accountability problems. The ICANN accountability resources I pointed you to make it fairly clear that ICANN has significant accountability issues. 
	Just off the top of my head, its request for reconsideration process (its appeal mechanism) is broken, with I think under a 3% success rate, the step after that is a mandated mediation process in which the ICANN general counsels office acts as both one of the parties and administrator of the process (which of course is an intrinsic conflict of interest) and that works about as well as you might expect, and its external review of decisions process 
	Rather, I was expressing my enthusiasm that after years of struggling against ICANNs accountability problems, we have a significant opportunity to fix some of them. 

Re: ICANN.  I consider ICANN to be an agency with a responsibility to pursue the global public interest.  Its internal accountability is of course important given that it has access to considerable funds (derived recurrently as a “tax” on global internet users). However, what I think is rather more important is how it structures its external accountability i.e. its accountability to global Internet users (which I have argued elsewhere is now effectively everyone in the world). 

	Yes, absolutely. Though defining the global public interest is of course a difficult question, and a subject of some discussion within the ICANN community currently. 
	And of course the issue of external accountability is a real one. There are mechanisms, and some of them work better than others. The structure within ICANN of the ALAC (At Large Advisory Committee) is designed to represent the interests of global Internet users, but opinions are divided as to how well it performs this function. That would be a useful discussion to have. 
	The regular (every 3 years) independent review processes, including the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (that has currently gone through the process twice, so ICANN folk tend to refer to ATRT1 and ATRT2). As I said previously, they include a healthy mix of people outside the ICANN system (e.g. ATRT2 included the Australian Minister for Communications Stephen Conroy), and experienced ICANN insiders (e.g. ATRT2 also included Avri), and I feel they are effective (I was part of one of those review teams, the Security Stability and Resiliency Review Team). But while a detailed independent review every three years is one useful mechanism, it is clearly not sufficient in terms of providing accountability for specific decisions. 

I would be delighted to be pointed in the direction of materials describing how ICANN intends to facilitate the latter type of global external accountability within a commitment to democratic governance as this would be a useful contribution to the on-going discussion on how mechanisms to ensure democratic governance of and through the Internet might be framed.

	The ongoing discussion is significant, and spread across a number of places - I don’t think there is any place in which global external accountability is discussed separately to other accountability issues (such as ICANNs internal accountability, and accountability to users of services it provides (the IANA service has specific relationships with Registries, RIRs, IETF, etc). The link I gave you to the accountability and IANA transition processes has links to the various places in which discussion is taking place. It is a difficult process to follow, due to its scope, large number of participants, and 

I would further be delighted to engage with you or others in serious and in-depth discussion on the various additional issues of democracy, MSism, accountability, governance and so on that have been identified. Unfortunately to date no appropriate “neutral” venue or other circumstance has been forthcoming to enable and support such discussions. Perhaps as I mentioned in my earlier note, ICANN might be induced to divert some of its “public” funding to supporting such an activity which to my mind would clearly be in the broader public interest.

	I suspect ICANN would be reluctant to sponsor a significant effort focussed on broader governance issues, especially in the current climate in which the CEO is under some pressure to focus on iCANN and reign in the resources put towards broader Internet governance adventures such as NMI. The ICANN community was not particularly pleased at this attempted expansion of ICANNs role. 
	I swear I am not trolling when I say that NMI is likely a potential funding source to support such as activity, though of course you might not consider an NMI funded (even if not NMI organised) process “neutral”. I would of course be willing to hear other suggestions. 

	Regards
		David
 
M
 
From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 9:40 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
 
 
On 6 Feb 2015, at 7:20 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:


Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the following questions in one or another form).  

Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some detail on what is meant by:
a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of the governed.
 
            I think you have the process backwards somewhat, Michael. For example, there is a really large, complex process looking very seriously at accountability mechanisms within ICANN right now. There are cross community working groups, multiple work streams, proposals and discussion flying around, and it is deeply intertwined with the IANA transition process. A lot of really significant accountability changes are being canvassed, such external review processes, mechanisms to remove board members, etc. For those civil society groups engaged with ICANN, this is occupying a great deal of our time. You are asking to fully understand the accountability mechanisms within complex organisations before you commit to becoming involved. I think if you wish to have good accountability within those structure, become involved and fight for it. 
 
https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability
 
            And information about the accountability mechanisms that already exist is not hard to find at all. Want to know about accountability mechanisms within ICANN?
Start here, spend a few hours reading, you’ll know more than most ICANN participants
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/accountability-en
The ATRT reports are perhaps not the best place to start for an outsider, but they are well worth a read, with a LOT of information about ICANN accountability and transparency mechanisms and how they work in practice, from independent review processes that include both genuine outsiders and knowledgable ICANN insiders (Avri was on the second ATRT, and did a lot of great work). 
 
            I don’t think there is a fundamental disagreement on the principles of accountability between JNC and groups like NCSG that are engaged with ICANN, but there is a profound gulf on tactics. For example, the JNC position on ICANN seems to be ‘we are unsure that ICANN is sufficiently accountable, so we will refuse to engage’. The end result is that most JNC comments on accountability within ICANN etc are not listened to, not because they are wrong in principle, but because they are misinformed, lacking the knowledge that comes from direct experience and relying on third hand reports. I recall last year, for example, conversations with you that made it clear that you had no idea at all that direct participants in ICANN policy processes had to lodge a statement of interest.
            In NCSG you won’t find us saying many good things about ICANN accountability either, but the difference is that, having engaged directly with its accountability mechanisms and discovered first hand their problems, we are now (given the leverage of the IANA transition process) in a good position to push to change those accountability mechanisms for the better. We know what works, we know what doesn’t, we know how mechanisms will be subverted or weakened. Accountability isn’t a slogan, it is a battle front, and one on which we currently have a good chance to make some very solid gains. 
            Which isn’t to say that I feel that being the internal opposition is the only viable strategy. Rather, strategically we should have both an internal opposition and an external opposition, and they should work together. At the moment, JNC seems to spend a large amount of its effort on attacking civil society colleagues for acting as the internal opposition. 



b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory democracy”
 
            This is actually an area that deserves significant discussion. Is the model of democracy we want aggregative (in which case certainly multi-stakeholderism fails, but we have no good model for transnational aggregative democracy, nor is one likely to emerge IMO - and democracy should be more than the tyranny of the majority) or deliberative (in which case multi-stakeholderism can be seen as profoundly democratic, as it forces deliberation, but multi-stakeholderism models currently do a poor job of dealing with situations where deliberation fails to achieve consensus)? Is democracy about representing the views of the majority, or protecting the voice and rights of minorities? Is democracy about the voice of the people, or is it about justice for all?
            These are not new debates. They are among the oldest of political debates, and we will continue to have them. There is no one defining right answer. Civil society should have a range of views and priorities. I admit that as I represent a civil rights organisation within most IG processes, my focus is on protection of rights for all, but that is my individual focus. 
 
            My primary policy difference with JNC is simply that JNCs dialogue about democracy vs multistakeholderism pretty much entirely ignores the problem of anti-democratic governments. I literally cannot recall a single comment from JNC advocates that addresses the issue. 


c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori have the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead role
 
            The whole point of multi-stakeholderism is that no one sector has a lead role.


, how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.
 
            These are really good questions. I do not think there is a single simple answer. There ARE areas in which governments should have the primary public policy role. But there are areas in which they should not. There do need to be accountability mechanisms, but such mechanisms do need to evolve to deal with the issues that arise from specific processes. How do we broaden inclusivity of processes, especially ones (such as very technical processes) that have a high barrier to entry. 
            And the question of how we deal with inclusivity/representativity in the absence of anchored democratic processes in another issue that is important, but that is a big problem without a simple solution. Because transnational processes are always conducted in the absence of anchored democratic processes as long as there are major states that are not democratic. As I said above, my biggest policy disagreement with the JNC is how often it conflates ‘states’ and ‘democratic states’, such as the rhetoric supporting its push to retain article 35. It is naive and hypocritical not to up front address the issue that any time a JNC position supports a primary role for government, it strengthens authoritarian anti-democratic governments as well as democratically elected ones - and that is leaving aside the ‘neoliberal’ corporatist subversion of the international trade position of most democratically elected governments, which you’d think would be a JNC concern really. 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150207/d5707bfb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sun Feb  8 21:52:06 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 21:52:06 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?ICANN_52_under_way_in_Singapore_=E2=80=93_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?remote_participation_info?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3DZ+2v3doGFuGJLmmxncSjEkJwHYbfF=md=mXtOpovdw@mail.gmail.com>

I suspect everyone here is well aware. But for your convenience, including
the twiiter and fb hashtag links.


 joly posted: "The 52nd meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN 52) is taking place February 9-12 2015 at the
Raffles City Convention Centre in Singapore. Remote participation/webcast
is available via Adobe Connect. Live english transcr"

[image: ICANN 52] <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/>The *52nd meeting of
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/>* (ICANN 52) is taking place *February
9-12 2015* at the Raffles City Convention Centre in *Singapore*. Remote
participation/webcast is available via Adobe Connect. Live english
transcription plus 7 languages of audio streams are also available.
Singapore is on SGT, thirteen hours ahead of NYC (UTC+8)











* What: ICANN 52 <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/> Where: Raffles City
Convention Centre, Singapore  When: February 9-12 2015 Full schedule:
http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule-full
<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule-full> Monday:
http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2015-02-09
<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2015-02-09> Tuesday:
http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2015-02-10
<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2015-02-10> Wednesday:
http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2015-02-11
<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2015-02-11> Thursday:
http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2015-02-12
<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2015-02-12> Twitter:
#ICANN52 <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23ICANN52&src=tyah>
Facebook: #ICANN52 <https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/icann52>*
*​​*




Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7453#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7453#comments>






*​Permalink*
:
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7453






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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/20150208/2efee597/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr  Mon Feb  9 00:44:06 2015
From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo))
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 05:44:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?ICANN_52_under_way_in_Singapore_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=93_remote_participation_info?=
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk3DZ+2v3doGFuGJLmmxncSjEkJwHYbfF=md=mXtOpovdw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1423460646.79606.YahooMailIosMobile@web28704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150209/35a1c2c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Feb 10 02:37:15 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:37:15 +1100
Subject: [governance] NetMundial
Message-ID: <F0EBE69C5109499AAE59D08D71A9E814@Toshiba>

Just a reminder that initial inputs into NetMundial Terms of Reference close on February 16, all inputs very welcome and can be made here.

https://www.netmundial.org/node/250
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150210/eb980785/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joao.caribe at me.com  Tue Feb 10 13:19:34 2015
From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:19:34 -0200
Subject: [governance] The digital castes are now alive!
Message-ID: <BBE2ECAF-93AF-498F-835F-C89328CC6156@me.com>

Folks,

On november I wrote one short article about the perverse side of Zero Rating (I sure don't know if there was some benefit on this), on my text, my concern was about with zero rating, they are creating digital castes

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141103_zero_rating_and_the_creation_of_digital_castes

Now this short research prove that I was right, and it's terrible!

http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/?utm_source=howtogeek&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

Enjoy, 

--
João Carlos R. Caribé
Consultor 
Skype joaocaribe
(021) 4042 7727 
(021) 9 8761 1967

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150210/d0e19ee6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bommelaer at isoc.org  Wed Feb 11 12:37:38 2015
From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:37:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] ISOC IG Survey available in French and Spanish
In-Reply-To: <1422911758658.15394@isoc.org>
References: <CAJTVAjwFvYan4fFqKF2L4a9T-FUdPi4c0V4KOV0W1AaUz+vkxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAcMrVoyv=-snbgN4RgfaeZpA+UR1t=fZcf8B5A4z2igow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHwnKeHw3CWsX8V=rxDH4UGiYj0kLi_EfKnLQzz3Mfjt+aMe2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCecM-R0xySXFTNDL+vfO9PgaSNqFs2=uWoNm=7x8WyBCJ=rA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com>,<CAPcSPKUdVvqKzLrX3Odf2fbXm0F5+ksbkKF_02f-BtdbwJut+A@mail.gmail.com>,<1422911758658.15394@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <1423676256947.57709@isoc.org>

Dear all,


We are pleased the see the very high level of responses to the survey ISOC is conducting on Internet governance.


We have translated the survey into French and Spanish, hoping this will facilitate even broader input:

  *   French:  https://internetsociety2.wufoo.com/forms/enquate-dopinion-sur-la-gouvernance-de-lainternet/
  *   Spanish:  https://internetsociety2.wufoo.com/forms/encuesta-sobre-gobernanza-de-internet/
  *   English: http://www.internetsociety.org/survey-internet-governance


The survey will remain open until 20 February. Thank you for your participation!


Best,

Constance



________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer at isoc.org>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:15 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] RSVP - ISOC Survey - Strengthening IG in 2015



Dear Colleagues,

The Internet Society (ISOC) is conducting a survey on Internet governance<http://www.internetsociety.org/survey-internet-governance>. The objective of this survey is to primarily ask you how we can strengthen mechanisms of the Internet governance ecosystem to better address policy challenges in 2015. It is also designed to help ISOC contribute to the current discussions on the evolution of the ecosystem. Some of the issues include: preparations for WSIS+10; the future of the IGF; the appropriate role of new platforms like the NETmundial Initiative (NMI); and enabling a successful IANA stewardship transition.

Your feedback and opinions will help us to understand the collective sentiment of the Internet community and will inform ISOC's approach as it looks to play its role to address these issues. For additional background on the survey, I encourage you to read Sally Wentworth's blog post<http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/02/take-brief-survey-help-strengthen-internet-governance-2015>.

The questions should take approximately 10 minutes to complete and we would be grateful if you could find the time to respond.  The survey will be open from 2 to 20 February. A synthesis report of responses will be made available on our website shortly after the survey closes.

We look forward to your participation!

Best regards,

Constance Bommelaer
Senior Director, Global Policy Partnerships
The Internet Society
www.isoc.org<http://www.isoc.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150211/a6ed51f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb 15 04:53:44 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:23:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
Message-ID: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net>

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm

How US sees trade rules being basically the rules for the Internet, 
because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for global trade, and 
so on.

And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the blunt 
shift here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.

Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose the 
side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters, and the 
World Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against unbridled 
'open' trade!)

Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is the US 
who will make the international trade rules, and thus, by derivation, 
the Internet rules.

And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many of us 
the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and somewhat 
chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent across the 
world supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the WEF is a good 
symbol.

The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest of the 
world, or people in general (including of the US), need to state theirs.

parminder
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Remarks
Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International 
Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business 
Affairs
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of 
Commerce in Latin America
Los Angeles, CA
February 11, 2015


  Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet


  * original <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm>

Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And trillions 
of devices are set to join them in the Internet of Things. Together, the 
connectivity of people and machines is enabling economic and social 
development around the world on a revolutionary scale.

But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around the 
world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of stakeholders, 
and strong trade agreements, with language preserving the free flow of 
information, to protect the Internet’s potential as the world’s engine 
for future growth, both at home and abroad.

As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to 3 
billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant economic 
potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock the promise of 
e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access 
for telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade 
rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade agreements. Trade Promotion 
Authority legislation and the pending trade agreements we expect 
Congress to consider over the coming months and years will provide that 
kind of protection. These agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of 
information and data are the default setting for nations. This will 
preserve the architecture that has empowered the Internet and global 
communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is in our 
interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move forward and 
approve TPA and the pending agreements for many reasons, but promoting 
the preservation and growth of global communications and the open 
Internet is one of the strongest.

Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, 
has made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade negotiating 
objectives must reflect the fact that the Internet represents /the 
shipping lane/ for 21st Century goods and services… Trade in digital 
goods and services is growing and driving economic growth and job 
creation all around the country. U.S digital exports are beating imports 
by large margins, but outdated trade rules threaten this growth by 
providing opportunities for protectionist policies overseas. The U.S. 
has the opportunity to establish new trade rules that preserve the 
Internet as a platform to share ideas and for expanding commerce..."

Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with nations 
in the Pacific community will establish rules for the preservation of 
those virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the transport of services 
and ideas, allowing startups and the voices of everyday people to 
challenge incumbent power in markets and ideas.

If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment 
Partnership regions coming behind agreements to preserve the free flow 
of information will serve as a powerful counterweight to authoritarian 
governments around the globe that have demonstrated a clear willingness 
to interfere with open markets and an open Internet. And make no mistake 
about it, if we do not seize every opportunity at our disposal to win 
commitments to an open, global Internet, we risk letting others set the 
rules of the road.

Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a threatening and 
destabilizing influence. The Russian government, just last month, 
pressured social media companies to block access to pages used to 
organize peaceful political protests. In China, authorities have blocked 
Gmail and Google’s search engine. In addition to ongoing and systematic 
efforts to control content and punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of 
political sensitivities, such measures are an effort to further diminish 
the Chinese people’s access to information, while effectively favoring 
Chinese Internet companies by blocking other providers from accessing 
its market. And we know they are urging others to take similar action. 
These trade barriers harm commerce and slow economic growth, and they 
produce socially oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.

The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and 
e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than ever to 
bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities by 
eliminating barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment while 
raising labor, environment, and other important standards across the 
board. Right now, China and others are negotiating their own trade 
agreements and seeking to influence the rules of commerce in the region 
and beyond. These trade agreements fail to meet the high standards that 
we strive for in our free trade agreements, including protection for 
workers’ rights and the environment. And they don’t protect intellectual 
property rights or maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our 
workers and our businesses at a disadvantage.

We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large 
alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of access to 
previously unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone, American Internet 
companies and their global community of users contribute over $141 
billion in annual revenue to the overall U.S. GDP, simultaneously 
employing 6.6 million people. And the Internet is not simply about the 
World Wide Web, it is the communications platform for managing global 
supply chains, distributing services, and acquiring the market 
information necessary to succeed anywhere.

Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather, businesses 
produce product components and provide services, many of which are 
delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive globally and promote 
the capacity of businesses to innovate, the United States and our 
partners in the Western Hemisphere must build the Americas into a 
shared, digitally connected, integrated platform for global success. By 
working with our trade partners in Latin America and Asia to conclude 
the Trans-Pacific Partnership we are advancing this vision and making it 
a reality. We will set the standards with twenty-first century trade 
agreements.

We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open markets. 
And to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate and 
communicate how these two values – open markets and the open Internet - 
are interconnected. And we have to show that Trade Promotion Authority 
and our agreements embrace the values that underpin the Internet today.

As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the 
solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our 
progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open markets is 
the position most consistent with our progressive tradition and values.

It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace, 
therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, 
as we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points. Among them was 
number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers 
and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the 
nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its 
maintenance.”

It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the first 
grant of trade negotiating authority.

In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it was 
JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from increased 
trade will provide more job opportunities for our workers. Our industry, 
our agriculture, our mining will benefit from increased export 
opportunities as other nations agree to lower their tariffs. Increased 
exports and imports will benefit our ports, steamship lines, and 
airlines as they handle an increased amount of trade. Lowering of our 
tariffs will provide an increased flow of goods for our American 
consumers. Our industries will be stimulated by increased export 
opportunities and by freer competition with the industries of other 
nations for an even greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, 
and productive system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”

And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our 
tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most recently 
stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small businesses, 
need to sell more American products overseas. Today, our businesses 
export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers higher 
wages. But as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s 
fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and our businesses at 
a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those 
rules. We should level the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both 
parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American 
workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t 
just free, but are also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”

Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in promoting 
open markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these ideals is and 
should remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal. It is critical to our 
future and contained within the language we are asking Congress to approve.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150215/2e8af00f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sun Feb 15 12:07:28 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 13:07:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
In-Reply-To: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54E0D250.3080402@gmail.com>


Dear parminder,

many thanks for the distribution of this text. In the statement of 
Daniel A. Sepulveda we can follow very clear the conditions.

"We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large 
alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of access to 
previously unreachable consumers..."

"Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather, businesses 
produce product components and provide services, many of which are 
delivered digitally..."

"And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our 
tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most recently 
stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small businesses, 
need to sell more American products overseas. Today, our businesses 
export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers higher 
wages. But as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s 
fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and our businesses at 
a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those 
rules. We should level the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both 
parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American 
workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t 
just free, but are also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”"

The USA have a fatal economical problem. They have no base. From there, 
they have to defined the rules in the intercountries and 
intercontinental relations. They stand with her backs on the wall. Only 
the Dollar domination and the military shit drive this breaking empire.

But for us we have to go another way. In the basic principles of our 
InterNet we implement the independence of any big rulers, private or 
state. Only then, we can create the InterNet, the transport system of 
digital data as a "Inter-connection of local Net-works". And this means, 
that we have to define the technical basis for the components to do that.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


Am 15/02/2015 um 05:53 a.m. schrieb parminder:
> http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm
>
> How US sees trade rules being basically the rules for the Internet,
> because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for global trade, and
> so on.
>
> And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the blunt
> shift here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.
>
> Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose the
> side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters, and the
> World Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against unbridled
> 'open' trade!)
>
> Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is the US
> who will make the international trade rules, and thus, by derivation,
> the Internet rules.
>
> And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many of us
> the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and somewhat
> chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent across the
> world supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the WEF is a good
> symbol.
>
> The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest of the
> world, or people in general (including of the US), need to state theirs.
>
> parminder
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Remarks
> Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
> Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International
> Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business
> Affairs
> U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of
> Commerce in Latin America
> Los Angeles, CA
> February 11, 2015
>
>
>   Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet
>
>
>   * original <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm>
>
> Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And trillions
> of devices are set to join them in the Internet of Things. Together, the
> connectivity of people and machines is enabling economic and social
> development around the world on a revolutionary scale.
>
> But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around the
> world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of stakeholders,
> and strong trade agreements, with language preserving the free flow of
> information, to protect the Internet’s potential as the world’s engine
> for future growth, both at home and abroad.
>
> As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to 3
> billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant economic
> potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock the promise of
> e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access
> for telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade
> rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade agreements. Trade Promotion
> Authority legislation and the pending trade agreements we expect
> Congress to consider over the coming months and years will provide that
> kind of protection. These agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of
> information and data are the default setting for nations. This will
> preserve the architecture that has empowered the Internet and global
> communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is in our
> interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move forward and
> approve TPA and the pending agreements for many reasons, but promoting
> the preservation and growth of global communications and the open
> Internet is one of the strongest.
>
> Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee,
> has made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade negotiating
> objectives must reflect the fact that the Internet represents /the
> shipping lane/ for 21st Century goods and services… Trade in digital
> goods and services is growing and driving economic growth and job
> creation all around the country. U.S digital exports are beating imports
> by large margins, but outdated trade rules threaten this growth by
> providing opportunities for protectionist policies overseas. The U.S.
> has the opportunity to establish new trade rules that preserve the
> Internet as a platform to share ideas and for expanding commerce..."
>
> Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with nations
> in the Pacific community will establish rules for the preservation of
> those virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the transport of services
> and ideas, allowing startups and the voices of everyday people to
> challenge incumbent power in markets and ideas.
>
> If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the
> Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment
> Partnership regions coming behind agreements to preserve the free flow
> of information will serve as a powerful counterweight to authoritarian
> governments around the globe that have demonstrated a clear willingness
> to interfere with open markets and an open Internet. And make no mistake
> about it, if we do not seize every opportunity at our disposal to win
> commitments to an open, global Internet, we risk letting others set the
> rules of the road.
>
> Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a threatening and
> destabilizing influence. The Russian government, just last month,
> pressured social media companies to block access to pages used to
> organize peaceful political protests. In China, authorities have blocked
> Gmail and Google’s search engine. In addition to ongoing and systematic
> efforts to control content and punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of
> political sensitivities, such measures are an effort to further diminish
> the Chinese people’s access to information, while effectively favoring
> Chinese Internet companies by blocking other providers from accessing
> its market. And we know they are urging others to take similar action.
> These trade barriers harm commerce and slow economic growth, and they
> produce socially oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.
>
> The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and
> e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than ever to
> bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities by
> eliminating barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment while
> raising labor, environment, and other important standards across the
> board. Right now, China and others are negotiating their own trade
> agreements and seeking to influence the rules of commerce in the region
> and beyond. These trade agreements fail to meet the high standards that
> we strive for in our free trade agreements, including protection for
> workers’ rights and the environment. And they don’t protect intellectual
> property rights or maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our
> workers and our businesses at a disadvantage.
>
> We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large
> alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of access to
> previously unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone, American Internet
> companies and their global community of users contribute over $141
> billion in annual revenue to the overall U.S. GDP, simultaneously
> employing 6.6 million people. And the Internet is not simply about the
> World Wide Web, it is the communications platform for managing global
> supply chains, distributing services, and acquiring the market
> information necessary to succeed anywhere.
>
> Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather, businesses
> produce product components and provide services, many of which are
> delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive globally and promote
> the capacity of businesses to innovate, the United States and our
> partners in the Western Hemisphere must build the Americas into a
> shared, digitally connected, integrated platform for global success. By
> working with our trade partners in Latin America and Asia to conclude
> the Trans-Pacific Partnership we are advancing this vision and making it
> a reality. We will set the standards with twenty-first century trade
> agreements.
>
> We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open markets.
> And to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate and
> communicate how these two values – open markets and the open Internet -
> are interconnected. And we have to show that Trade Promotion Authority
> and our agreements embrace the values that underpin the Internet today.
>
> As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the
> solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our
> progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open markets is
> the position most consistent with our progressive tradition and values.
>
> It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace,
> therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program,
> as we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points. Among them was
> number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers
> and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the
> nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its
> maintenance.”
>
> It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the first
> grant of trade negotiating authority.
>
> In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it was
> JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from increased
> trade will provide more job opportunities for our workers. Our industry,
> our agriculture, our mining will benefit from increased export
> opportunities as other nations agree to lower their tariffs. Increased
> exports and imports will benefit our ports, steamship lines, and
> airlines as they handle an increased amount of trade. Lowering of our
> tariffs will provide an increased flow of goods for our American
> consumers. Our industries will be stimulated by increased export
> opportunities and by freer competition with the industries of other
> nations for an even greater effort to develop an efficient, economic,
> and productive system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”
>
> And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our
> tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most recently
> stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small businesses,
> need to sell more American products overseas. Today, our businesses
> export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers higher
> wages. But as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s
> fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and our businesses at
> a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those
> rules. We should level the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both
> parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American
> workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t
> just free, but are also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”
>
> Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in promoting
> open markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these ideals is and
> should remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal. It is critical to our
> future and contained within the language we are asking Congress to approve.
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Sun Feb 15 13:20:51 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 13:20:51 -0500
Subject: [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
In-Reply-To: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>

I do agree with you parminder. Burcu and I have been saying for a long time
- years - this community should pay more attention to trade. The problem is
where the rules are actually made and are biding (=trade negotiations, such
TPP and TTIP) there is no multistakhoderism and even worts no transparency
or means of real accountability.
We are losing in TPP (which has provisions worst than Acta, and where
internet is impacted in at least 3 of the agreement chapters) and we lost
Wyden in the fight against fast track - so it is done there...
TTIP is a tiny better since is begging and EU has been publishing its
position documents.
But another interesting thing is that India, Brazil and Russia are not part
of this trade efforts ....
US don't want the ITU to take over the Internet, but then US make rules
trough trade with countries that have less bargain power and need access on
commodities
It is a joke


On Sunday, February 15, 2015, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm
>
> How US sees trade rules  being basically the rules for the Internet,
> because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for global trade, and so
> on.
>
> And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the blunt shift
> here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.
>
> Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose the
> side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters, and the World
> Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against unbridled 'open' trade!)
>
>
> Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is the US who
> will make the international trade rules, and thus, by derivation, the
> Internet rules.
>
> And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many of us
> the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and somewhat
> chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent across the world
> supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the WEF is a good symbol.
>
> The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest of the
> world, or people in general (including of the US), need to state theirs.
>
> parminder
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Remarks
> Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
> Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International
> Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business
> Affairs
>  U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of
> Commerce in Latin America
>  Los Angeles, CA
>  February 11, 2015
> Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet
>
>    -  original <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm>
>
>   Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And trillions
> of devices are set to join them in the Internet of Things. Together, the
> connectivity of people and machines is enabling economic and social
> development around the world on a revolutionary scale.
>
> But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around the
> world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of stakeholders,
> and strong trade agreements, with language preserving the free flow of
> information, to protect the Internet’s potential as the world’s engine for
> future growth, both at home and abroad.
>
> As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to 3
> billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant economic
> potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock the promise of
> e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access for
> telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade rules-of-the-road by
> negotiating new trade agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation and
> the pending trade agreements we expect Congress to consider over the coming
> months and years will provide that kind of protection. These agreements aim
> to ensure that the free flow of information and data are the default
> setting for nations. This will preserve the architecture that has empowered
> the Internet and global communications to fuel economic growth at home and
> abroad. It is in our interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we
> move forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements for many reasons,
> but promoting the preservation and growth of global communications and the
> open Internet is one of the strongest.
>
> Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, has
> made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade negotiating objectives
> must reflect the fact that the Internet represents *the shipping lane*
> for 21st Century goods and services… Trade in digital goods and services is
> growing and driving economic growth and job creation all around the
> country. U.S digital exports are beating imports by large margins, but
> outdated trade rules threaten this growth by providing opportunities for
> protectionist policies overseas. The U.S. has the opportunity to establish
> new trade rules that preserve the Internet as a platform to share ideas and
> for expanding commerce..."
>
> Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with nations
> in the Pacific community will establish rules for the preservation of those
> virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the transport of services and ideas,
> allowing startups and the voices of everyday people to challenge incumbent
> power in markets and ideas.
>
> If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the Trans-Pacific
> Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership regions
> coming behind agreements to preserve the free flow of information will
> serve as a powerful counterweight to authoritarian governments around the
> globe that have demonstrated a clear willingness to interfere with open
> markets and an open Internet. And make no mistake about it, if we do not
> seize every opportunity at our disposal to win commitments to an open,
> global Internet, we risk letting others set the rules of the road.
>
> Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a threatening and
> destabilizing influence. The Russian government, just last month, pressured
> social media companies to block access to pages used to organize peaceful
> political protests. In China, authorities have blocked Gmail and Google’s
> search engine. In addition to ongoing and systematic efforts to control
> content and punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of political
> sensitivities, such measures are an effort to further diminish the Chinese
> people’s access to information, while effectively favoring Chinese Internet
> companies by blocking other providers from accessing its market. And we
> know they are urging others to take similar action. These trade barriers
> harm commerce and slow economic growth, and they produce socially
> oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.
>
> The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and
> e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than ever to
> bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities by eliminating
> barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment while raising labor,
> environment, and other important standards across the board. Right now,
> China and others are negotiating their own trade agreements and seeking to
> influence the rules of commerce in the region and beyond. These trade
> agreements fail to meet the high standards that we strive for in our free
> trade agreements, including protection for workers’ rights and the
> environment. And they don’t protect intellectual property rights or
> maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our workers and our
> businesses at a disadvantage.
>
> We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large alike,
> are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of access to previously
> unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone, American Internet companies and
> their global community of users contribute over $141 billion in annual
> revenue to the overall U.S. GDP, simultaneously employing 6.6 million
> people. And the Internet is not simply about the World Wide Web, it is the
> communications platform for managing global supply chains, distributing
> services, and acquiring the market information necessary to succeed
> anywhere.
>
> Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather, businesses
> produce product components and provide services, many of which are
> delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive globally and promote
> the capacity of businesses to innovate, the United States and our partners
> in the Western Hemisphere must build the Americas into a shared, digitally
> connected, integrated platform for global success. By working with our
> trade partners in Latin America and Asia to conclude the Trans-Pacific
> Partnership we are advancing this vision and making it a reality. We will
> set the standards with twenty-first century trade agreements.
>
> We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open markets. And
> to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate and communicate how
> these two values – open markets and the open Internet - are interconnected.
> And we have to show that Trade Promotion Authority and our agreements
> embrace the values that underpin the Internet today.
>
> As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the
> solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our
> progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open markets is the
> position most consistent with our progressive tradition and values.
>
> It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace,
> therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, as
> we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points. Among them was
> number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers
> and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the
> nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its
> maintenance.”
>
> It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the first
> grant of trade negotiating authority.
>
> In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it was
> JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from increased trade
> will provide more job opportunities for our workers. Our industry, our
> agriculture, our mining will benefit from increased export opportunities as
> other nations agree to lower their tariffs. Increased exports and imports
> will benefit our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they handle an
> increased amount of trade. Lowering of our tariffs will provide an
> increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries will be
> stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer competition with
> the industries of other nations for an even greater effort to develop an
> efficient, economic, and productive system. The results can bring a dynamic
> new era of growth.”
>
> And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our tradition,
> our progressive tradition, that President Obama most recently stated,
> “Twenty-first century businesses, including small businesses, need to sell
> more American products overseas. Today, our businesses export more than
> ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers higher wages. But as we
> speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing
> region. That would put our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage.
> Why would we let that happen? We should write those rules. We should level
> the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade
> promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade
> deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are also fair. It’s
> the right thing to do.”
>
> Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in promoting open
> markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these ideals is and should
> remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal. It is critical to our future
> and contained within the language we are asking Congress to approve.
>


-- 
-- 
*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/20150215/bf5bd166/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sun Feb 15 15:01:13 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:01:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net> <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2A603611-CF4A-4227-8CEE-54ECBE9C7BC7@consensus.pro>

Dear all,

As most of you know I too believe that trade policy needs greater engagement by the Internet community. I have a far more sanguine view of what trade policy can do to keep the Internet open than many of you do but nevertheless I know for a fact that many trade negotiators really genuinely want to understand the Internet better and there is a great shortage of truly balanced and factual information about how the Internet works that they can use.

Finally, I work a lot on trade policy in Geneva. I find the negotiators open to meetings irrespective of whether those asking are from their countries or not if they believe that a meeting can help them understand things better. If you just show up and tell them trade policy is all bad and they should stop making trade deals, that doesn't really work but a more nuanced message that points out where the risks are, where unintended consequences are likely, etc gets an open mind and a reception.

Right now, the biggest trade deal as it relates to the Internet is not TPP or TTIP - it is TISA, and that's negotiated here in Geneva, which means it is the most open agreement vis a vis meeting with negotiators of any major trade deal.

If you want to argue for the Internet to be kept out of trade agreements you'll not succeed - there's just too big a trade impact. If you want to argue for provisions that could actually be helpful not just to commerce in dollars and cents but in ideas, there you can get a hearing. The sad thing is there are few of the latter from CS, and a lot from the former.

On 15 Feb 2015, at 19:20, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> I do agree with you parminder. Burcu and I have been saying for a long time - years - this community should pay more attention to trade. The problem is where the rules are actually made and are biding (=trade negotiations, such TPP and TTIP) there is no multistakhoderism and even worts no transparency or means of real accountability. 
> We are losing in TPP (which has provisions worst than Acta, and where internet is impacted in at least 3 of the agreement chapters) and we lost Wyden in the fight against fast track - so it is done there...
> TTIP is a tiny better since is begging and EU has been publishing its position documents. 
> But another interesting thing is that India, Brazil and Russia are not part of this trade efforts ....
> US don't want the ITU to take over the Internet, but then US make rules trough trade with countries that have less bargain power and need access on commodities 
> It is a joke
> 
> 
> On Sunday, February 15, 2015, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm
> 
> How US sees trade rules  being basically the rules for the Internet, because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for global trade, and so on.
> 
> And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the blunt shift here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.
> 
> Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose the side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters, and the World Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against unbridled 'open' trade!)   
> 
> Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is the US who will make the international trade rules, and thus, by derivation, the Internet rules.
> 
> And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many of us the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and somewhat chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent across the world supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the WEF is a good symbol. 
> 
> The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest of the world, or people in general (including of the US), need to state theirs. 
> 
> parminder 
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Remarks
> Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
> Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
> U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America
> Los Angeles, CA
> February 11, 2015
> Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet
> 
> 
> original
> Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And trillions of devices are set to join them in the Internet of Things. Together, the connectivity of people and machines is enabling economic and social development around the world on a revolutionary scale.
> 
> But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around the world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of stakeholders, and strong trade agreements, with language preserving the free flow of information, to protect the Internet’s potential as the world’s engine for future growth, both at home and abroad.
> 
> As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to 3 billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant economic potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation and the pending trade agreements we expect Congress to consider over the coming months and years will provide that kind of protection. These agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of information and data are the default setting for nations. This will preserve the architecture that has empowered the Internet and global communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is in our interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements for many reasons, but promoting the preservation and growth of global communications and the open Internet is one of the strongest.
> 
> Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, has made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade negotiating objectives must reflect the fact that the Internet represents the shipping lane for 21st Century goods and services… Trade in digital goods and services is growing and driving economic growth and job creation all around the country. U.S digital exports are beating imports by large margins, but outdated trade rules threaten this growth by providing opportunities for protectionist policies overseas. The U.S. has the opportunity to establish new trade rules that preserve the Internet as a platform to share ideas and for expanding commerce..."
> 
> Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with nations in the Pacific community will establish rules for the preservation of those virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the transport of services and ideas, allowing startups and the voices of everyday people to challenge incumbent power in markets and ideas.
> 
> If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership regions coming behind agreements to preserve the free flow of information will serve as a powerful counterweight to authoritarian governments around the globe that have demonstrated a clear willingness to interfere with open markets and an open Internet. And make no mistake about it, if we do not seize every opportunity at our disposal to win commitments to an open, global Internet, we risk letting others set the rules of the road.
> 
> Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a threatening and destabilizing influence. The Russian government, just last month, pressured social media companies to block access to pages used to organize peaceful political protests. In China, authorities have blocked Gmail and Google’s search engine. In addition to ongoing and systematic efforts to control content and punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of political sensitivities, such measures are an effort to further diminish the Chinese people’s access to information, while effectively favoring Chinese Internet companies by blocking other providers from accessing its market. And we know they are urging others to take similar action. These trade barriers harm commerce and slow economic growth, and they produce socially oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.
> 
> The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than ever to bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities by eliminating barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment while raising labor, environment, and other important standards across the board. Right now, China and others are negotiating their own trade agreements and seeking to influence the rules of commerce in the region and beyond. These trade agreements fail to meet the high standards that we strive for in our free trade agreements, including protection for workers’ rights and the environment. And they don’t protect intellectual property rights or maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage.
> 
> We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of access to previously unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone, American Internet companies and their global community of users contribute over $141 billion in annual revenue to the overall U.S. GDP, simultaneously employing 6.6 million people. And the Internet is not simply about the World Wide Web, it is the communications platform for managing global supply chains, distributing services, and acquiring the market information necessary to succeed anywhere.
> 
> Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather, businesses produce product components and provide services, many of which are delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive globally and promote the capacity of businesses to innovate, the United States and our partners in the Western Hemisphere must build the Americas into a shared, digitally connected, integrated platform for global success. By working with our trade partners in Latin America and Asia to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership we are advancing this vision and making it a reality. We will set the standards with twenty-first century trade agreements.
> 
> We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open markets. And to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate and communicate how these two values – open markets and the open Internet - are interconnected. And we have to show that Trade Promotion Authority and our agreements embrace the values that underpin the Internet today.
> 
> As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open markets is the position most consistent with our progressive tradition and values.
> 
> It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, as we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points. Among them was number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.”
> 
> It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the first grant of trade negotiating authority.
> 
> In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it was JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our workers. Our industry, our agriculture, our mining will benefit from increased export opportunities as other nations agree to lower their tariffs. Increased exports and imports will benefit our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they handle an increased amount of trade. Lowering of our tariffs will provide an increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries will be stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer competition with the industries of other nations for an even greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, and productive system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”
> 
> And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most recently stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small businesses, need to sell more American products overseas. Today, our businesses export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers higher wages. But as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”
> 
> Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in promoting open markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these ideals is and should remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal. It is critical to our future and contained within the language we are asking Congress to approve.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Carolina Rossini 
> Vice President, International Policy
> Public Knowledge
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150215/f2cd7a4e/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/20150215/f2cd7a4e/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Sun Feb 15 20:38:16 2015
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:38:16 +0800
Subject: [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net> <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E6F2F3DA-F830-4EBD-B162-990124B84CBD@gmail.com>

Hi

Some of us raised global trade and IPR regimes as parts of broad IG back in the WSIS and were told in no uncertain terms that these issues were out of scope and WTO/WIPO were fully competent in their respective spheres and shouldn’t be dragged into a politicized IG framing where non-specialized, unrelated demands ruled the roost. That’s been changing a bit of late, as evidenced both by WTO public forum debates and some actions in e.g. the Council on Trade in Services.  But I’d caution against believing that only one country has an agenda or is a driver here.  As impacted industries have grown so too has interest in some sort of deals, but it’s a complex geometry, which is part of why things are pushing away to varying degrees from multilateral harmonization and toward plurilateral/megaregional/other small-n configurations of the reasonably like-minded to “get things done.” 

Cheers

Bill

> On Feb 16, 2015, at 2:20 AM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I do agree with you parminder. Burcu and I have been saying for a long time - years - this community should pay more attention to trade. The problem is where the rules are actually made and are biding (=trade negotiations, such TPP and TTIP) there is no multistakhoderism and even worts no transparency or means of real accountability. 
> We are losing in TPP (which has provisions worst than Acta, and where internet is impacted in at least 3 of the agreement chapters) and we lost Wyden in the fight against fast track - so it is done there...
> TTIP is a tiny better since is begging and EU has been publishing its position documents. 
> But another interesting thing is that India, Brazil and Russia are not part of this trade efforts ....
> US don't want the ITU to take over the Internet, but then US make rules trough trade with countries that have less bargain power and need access on commodities 
> It is a joke
> 
> 
> On Sunday, February 15, 2015, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm>
> 
> How US sees trade rules  being basically the rules for the Internet, because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for global trade, and so on.
> 
> And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the blunt shift here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.
> 
> Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose the side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters, and the World Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against unbridled 'open' trade!)   
> 
> Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is the US who will make the international trade rules, and thus, by derivation, the Internet rules.
> 
> And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many of us the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and somewhat chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent across the world supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the WEF is a good symbol. 
> 
> The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest of the world, or people in general (including of the US), need to state theirs. 
> 
> parminder 
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Remarks
> Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
> Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
> U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America
> Los Angeles, CA
> February 11, 2015
> Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet
> 
> 
> original <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm>
> Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And trillions of devices are set to join them in the Internet of Things. Together, the connectivity of people and machines is enabling economic and social development around the world on a revolutionary scale.
> 
> But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around the world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of stakeholders, and strong trade agreements, with language preserving the free flow of information, to protect the Internet’s potential as the world’s engine for future growth, both at home and abroad.
> 
> As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to 3 billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant economic potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation and the pending trade agreements we expect Congress to consider over the coming months and years will provide that kind of protection. These agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of information and data are the default setting for nations. This will preserve the architecture that has empowered the Internet and global communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is in our interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements for many reasons, but promoting the preservation and growth of global communications and the open Internet is one of the strongest.
> 
> Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, has made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade negotiating objectives must reflect the fact that the Internet represents the shipping lane for 21st Century goods and services… Trade in digital goods and services is growing and driving economic growth and job creation all around the country. U.S digital exports are beating imports by large margins, but outdated trade rules threaten this growth by providing opportunities for protectionist policies overseas. The U.S. has the opportunity to establish new trade rules that preserve the Internet as a platform to share ideas and for expanding commerce..."
> 
> Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with nations in the Pacific community will establish rules for the preservation of those virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the transport of services and ideas, allowing startups and the voices of everyday people to challenge incumbent power in markets and ideas.
> 
> If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership regions coming behind agreements to preserve the free flow of information will serve as a powerful counterweight to authoritarian governments around the globe that have demonstrated a clear willingness to interfere with open markets and an open Internet. And make no mistake about it, if we do not seize every opportunity at our disposal to win commitments to an open, global Internet, we risk letting others set the rules of the road.
> 
> Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a threatening and destabilizing influence. The Russian government, just last month, pressured social media companies to block access to pages used to organize peaceful political protests. In China, authorities have blocked Gmail and Google’s search engine. In addition to ongoing and systematic efforts to control content and punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of political sensitivities, such measures are an effort to further diminish the Chinese people’s access to information, while effectively favoring Chinese Internet companies by blocking other providers from accessing its market. And we know they are urging others to take similar action. These trade barriers harm commerce and slow economic growth, and they produce socially oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.
> 
> The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than ever to bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities by eliminating barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment while raising labor, environment, and other important standards across the board. Right now, China and others are negotiating their own trade agreements and seeking to influence the rules of commerce in the region and beyond. These trade agreements fail to meet the high standards that we strive for in our free trade agreements, including protection for workers’ rights and the environment. And they don’t protect intellectual property rights or maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage.
> 
> We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of access to previously unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone, American Internet companies and their global community of users contribute over $141 billion in annual revenue to the overall U.S. GDP, simultaneously employing 6.6 million people. And the Internet is not simply about the World Wide Web, it is the communications platform for managing global supply chains, distributing services, and acquiring the market information necessary to succeed anywhere.
> 
> Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather, businesses produce product components and provide services, many of which are delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive globally and promote the capacity of businesses to innovate, the United States and our partners in the Western Hemisphere must build the Americas into a shared, digitally connected, integrated platform for global success. By working with our trade partners in Latin America and Asia to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership we are advancing this vision and making it a reality. We will set the standards with twenty-first century trade agreements.
> 
> We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open markets. And to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate and communicate how these two values – open markets and the open Internet - are interconnected. And we have to show that Trade Promotion Authority and our agreements embrace the values that underpin the Internet today.
> 
> As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open markets is the position most consistent with our progressive tradition and values.
> 
> It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, as we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points. Among them was number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.”
> 
> It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the first grant of trade negotiating authority.
> 
> In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it was JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our workers. Our industry, our agriculture, our mining will benefit from increased export opportunities as other nations agree to lower their tariffs. Increased exports and imports will benefit our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they handle an increased amount of trade. Lowering of our tariffs will provide an increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries will be stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer competition with the industries of other nations for an even greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, and productive system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”
> 
> And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most recently stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small businesses, need to sell more American products overseas. Today, our businesses export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers higher wages. But as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”
> 
> Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in promoting open markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these ideals is and should remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal. It is critical to our future and contained within the language we are asking Congress to approve.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Carolina Rossini 
> Vice President, International Policy
> Public Knowledge
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>
> + 1 6176979389 |  <>skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150216/25154253/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 16 01:39:19 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:09:19 +0530
Subject: [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net> <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54E19097.1000705@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 15 February 2015 11:50 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> I do agree with you parminder. Burcu and I have been saying for a long 
> time - years - this community should pay more attention to trade.

Dear Carolina,

Thanks for your agreement. Civil society activists should of course be 
everywhere to defend public interest, and often it is only a question of 
resources, a point to which I will return.

However, the main thrust of my email was somewhat different. /*The 
question is, does civil society want to see the Internet and its 
governance being framed primarily in terms of commerce and trade, or do 
we want them to framed primarily in terms of a new global infrastructure 
for our social interactions, media, democratic participation, community 
building, and so on.*/ Such a distinction is extremely important at this 
formative stage of and Internet-mediated society. And it matters  a lot 
what the primary framing of an issue is... The most benign trade 
negotiators would still think of Internet and data as commodities, that 
is their training and occupational requirement.

The US thrust the first Internet policy framework upon the world, in the 
form of the 'Framework for global e-commerce' 
<http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Commerce/read.html>which peremptorily 
framed the Internet in a primary commercial role,
as against its role as a revolutionary social media that people 
instinctively saw it primarily and first-of-all as. But at that time, 
with the Internet having developed mostly in the US, there was still 
some logic for the US to set the global Internet agenda, although a 
primary commercial definition cannot be considered to be in the best 
interest of the US public either.

But in 2015, there is no reason to allow the US to determine the global 
Internet agenda, especially when it is such that goes against global 
public Internet. Why should we agree to a primary trade and commerce 
framing of the Internet and its governance? That is the main point that 
I am raising.

First of all we need to decide what do want to be the primary framing of 
the Internet and IG. In this regard do sometime compare WSIS documents - 
starting from Geneva declaration of principles to the Tunis agenda - to 
the current secretive US led trade discussions that is developing the IG 
regime for us. You will see how, when we take a larger social view of 
the Internet, we get a very different framing for Internet governance - 
very different initial norms and principles. I will not pursue this line 
of argument any further, but it is worth giving a close and sustained look.

Once, we have decided what we want the primary framing of the Internet 
and IG to be - and I am sure it will be as a social media, with 
attendant specific characterisations, before an commercial platform - we 
have to figure out what should civil society do about it.

And here we could differ, but my view is that to pursue such a vision in 
any kind of effective manner, and to be able to see any real impact, we 
need a global IG body and venue that looks at the Internet first as how 
most people look at it - as a revolutionary social media. Here I cannot 
check myself from quoting that very powerful 'social' definition of the 
Internet. "Internet is actually the name of a social condition: the fact 
that everyone in the network society is connected directly, without 
intermediation, to everyone else."/*A basic larger social framing of the 
Internet and its governance at such a Internet centred venue, with 
strong civil society participation, would lay the norms and principles 
within which then the role of the Internet in trade, IP, security etc 
can and should be developed at the respective bodies of relevant 
competence. Such a meta or layered treatment of Internet governance is 
most important  if we are to realise, even partly, the Internet of the 
popular, somewhat idealistic, conception. */

I know that immediately brings in the bogeyman of UN control of the 
Internet. I, however, cannot see how a new Internet governance space can 
control the Internet any more than, for instance, the UNESCO has 
controlled global education and sciences... There can be no doubt that 
any 'control' over education and sciences globally is at least as 
pernicious as that of the Internet! But to my best knowledge that has 
not happened despite UNESCO existing for many decades now. On the other 
hand, UNESCO has contributed so much to education and sciences, and 
would have contributed much more if some superpowers had not played 
games with its funding.

However, what one sees is that much of the active civil society has been 
rather lukewarm if not resistant to WSIS like global activity, much less 
an actual IG platform for normative development in this area. No one got 
up to support the developing countries when they were so persistently 
asking, for the last 2 years, for a full WSIS style prepcoms based WSIS 
plus 10, which would in that case almost certainly have been driven from 
Geneva as WSIS was. Even now, I see little enthusiasm for WSIS plus 10, 
which is looked upon as something that we should see safely pass rather 
than expect anything from it.  And of course any talk about a new IG 
specific governance venue is rather violently opposed (while WEF, 
unfortunately, is being supported through the NMI to make big-boys' 
deals based norms and guidelines in the IG space!).

Convenient and nice-sounding terms like 'distributed governance' are 
employed without any clear meaning or reference. Is this about the 
technical/ operational levels of IG - the ICANN stuff? But then almost 
all of us agree that that is very fine and should indeed be sanctified 
by a global agreement. But arent real IG issues elsewhere - /*what does 
distributed governance mean in terms of these real issues - does it not 
mean that trade elements of the Internet should be dealt with in trade 
talks, without any Internet-specific overall treatment and norms 
informing such talks?*/ Now, if distributed IG, in terms of non tech IG 
issues, does not means this, what does it mean? I will like to hear from 
proponents of distributed governance an response to it (and for the nth 
time, with regard to non-tech IG area, the real important IG stuff) .

I see 'distributed governance' as a nice-sounding term - btw, very often 
used by the incumbent, the US - to window-dress status quo. I see it 
either as meaningless, or simply as saying - let the Internet be 
discussed and captured by trade talks. And that is what is happening.

Lastly, I said I will come back to the issue of resources: Not only is 
it structurally very deficient not to have an Internet and IG centred 
governance venue, such a so-called 'distributed' arrangement challenges 
most the participation of the least resourced. We all know that there is 
indeed a subject, a discipline, a field of activism, etc, around the 
Internet (one wonders why it is not claimed that these too should not be 
'Internet-centred' but distributed?!). One Internet focussed governance 
venue would possibly allow real participation - however difficult that 
in any case is - of a large number of activists in developing the norms, 
principles and some overall policies about the Internet. But of course 
the status quo ists want no such thing. It is simply not possible for 
these activist groups to be present in all the small and big, known and 
unannounced, places where the real architecture of this most vital 
social medium is currently being built. Please do not blame them for it. 
Blame the structures, and perhaps blame those who do not advocate and 
fight for the right structures.

parminder

> The problem is where the rules are actually made and are biding 
> (=trade negotiations, such TPP and TTIP) there is no multistakhoderism 
> and even worts no transparency or means of real accountability.
> We are losing in TPP (which has provisions worst than Acta, and where 
> internet is impacted in at least 3 of the agreement chapters) and we 
> lost Wyden in the fight against fast track - so it is done there...
> TTIP is a tiny better since is begging and EU has been publishing its 
> position documents.
> But another interesting thing is that India, Brazil and Russia are not 
> part of this trade efforts ....
> US don't want the ITU to take over the Internet, but then US make 
> rules trough trade with countries that have less bargain power and 
> need access on commodities
> It is a joke
>
>
> On Sunday, February 15, 2015, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm
>
>     How US sees trade rules being basically the rules for the
>     Internet, because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for
>     global trade, and so on.
>
>     And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the
>     blunt shift here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.
>
>     Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose
>     the side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters,
>     and the World Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against
>     unbridled 'open' trade!)
>
>     Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is
>     the US who will make the international trade rules, and thus, by
>     derivation, the Internet rules.
>
>     And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many
>     of us the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and
>     somewhat chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent
>     across the world supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the
>     WEF is a good symbol.
>
>     The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest
>     of the world, or people in general (including of the US), need to
>     state theirs.
>
>     parminder
>     ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>     Remarks
>     Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
>     Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International
>     Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and
>     Business Affairs
>     U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of
>     Commerce in Latin America
>     Los Angeles, CA
>     February 11, 2015
>
>
>       Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet
>
>
>       * original <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm>
>
>     Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And
>     trillions of devices are set to join them in the Internet of
>     Things. Together, the connectivity of people and machines is
>     enabling economic and social development around the world on a
>     revolutionary scale.
>
>     But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around
>     the world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of
>     stakeholders, and strong trade agreements, with language
>     preserving the free flow of information, to protect the Internet’s
>     potential as the world’s engine for future growth, both at home
>     and abroad.
>
>     As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to
>     3 billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant
>     economic potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock
>     the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open,
>     promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and
>     set digital trade rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade
>     agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation and the pending
>     trade agreements we expect Congress to consider over the coming
>     months and years will provide that kind of protection. These
>     agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of information and
>     data are the default setting for nations. This will preserve the
>     architecture that has empowered the Internet and global
>     communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is
>     in our interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move
>     forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements for many
>     reasons, but promoting the preservation and growth of global
>     communications and the open Internet is one of the strongest.
>
>     Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance
>     Committee, has made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade
>     negotiating objectives must reflect the fact that the Internet
>     represents /the shipping lane/ for 21st Century goods and
>     services… Trade in digital goods and services is growing and
>     driving economic growth and job creation all around the country.
>     U.S digital exports are beating imports by large margins, but
>     outdated trade rules threaten this growth by providing
>     opportunities for protectionist policies overseas. The U.S. has
>     the opportunity to establish new trade rules that preserve the
>     Internet as a platform to share ideas and for expanding commerce..."
>
>     Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with
>     nations in the Pacific community will establish rules for the
>     preservation of those virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the
>     transport of services and ideas, allowing startups and the voices
>     of everyday people to challenge incumbent power in markets and ideas.
>
>     If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the
>     Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment
>     Partnership regions coming behind agreements to preserve the free
>     flow of information will serve as a powerful counterweight to
>     authoritarian governments around the globe that have demonstrated
>     a clear willingness to interfere with open markets and an open
>     Internet. And make no mistake about it, if we do not seize every
>     opportunity at our disposal to win commitments to an open, global
>     Internet, we risk letting others set the rules of the road.
>
>     Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a
>     threatening and destabilizing influence. The Russian government,
>     just last month, pressured social media companies to block access
>     to pages used to organize peaceful political protests. In China,
>     authorities have blocked Gmail and Google’s search engine. In
>     addition to ongoing and systematic efforts to control content and
>     punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of political sensitivities,
>     such measures are an effort to further diminish the Chinese
>     people’s access to information, while effectively favoring Chinese
>     Internet companies by blocking other providers from accessing its
>     market. And we know they are urging others to take similar action.
>     These trade barriers harm commerce and slow economic growth, and
>     they produce socially oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.
>
>     The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and
>     e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than
>     ever to bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities
>     by eliminating barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment
>     while raising labor, environment, and other important standards
>     across the board. Right now, China and others are negotiating
>     their own trade agreements and seeking to influence the rules of
>     commerce in the region and beyond. These trade agreements fail to
>     meet the high standards that we strive for in our free trade
>     agreements, including protection for workers’ rights and the
>     environment. And they don’t protect intellectual property rights
>     or maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our workers
>     and our businesses at a disadvantage.
>
>     We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large
>     alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of
>     access to previously unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone,
>     American Internet companies and their global community of users
>     contribute over $141 billion in annual revenue to the overall U.S.
>     GDP, simultaneously employing 6.6 million people. And the Internet
>     is not simply about the World Wide Web, it is the communications
>     platform for managing global supply chains, distributing services,
>     and acquiring the market information necessary to succeed anywhere.
>
>     Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather,
>     businesses produce product components and provide services, many
>     of which are delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive
>     globally and promote the capacity of businesses to innovate, the
>     United States and our partners in the Western Hemisphere must
>     build the Americas into a shared, digitally connected, integrated
>     platform for global success. By working with our trade partners in
>     Latin America and Asia to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership
>     we are advancing this vision and making it a reality. We will set
>     the standards with twenty-first century trade agreements.
>
>     We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open
>     markets. And to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate
>     and communicate how these two values – open markets and the open
>     Internet - are interconnected. And we have to show that Trade
>     Promotion Authority and our agreements embrace the values that
>     underpin the Internet today.
>
>     As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the
>     solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our
>     progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open
>     markets is the position most consistent with our progressive
>     tradition and values.
>
>     It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace,
>     therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible
>     program, as we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points.
>     Among them was number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of
>     all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of
>     trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and
>     associating themselves for its maintenance.”
>
>     It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the
>     first grant of trade negotiating authority.
>
>     In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962,
>     it was JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from
>     increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our
>     workers. Our industry, our agriculture, our mining will benefit
>     from increased export opportunities as other nations agree to
>     lower their tariffs. Increased exports and imports will benefit
>     our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they handle an
>     increased amount of trade. Lowering of our tariffs will provide an
>     increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries
>     will be stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer
>     competition with the industries of other nations for an even
>     greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, and productive
>     system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”
>
>     And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our
>     tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most
>     recently stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small
>     businesses, need to sell more American products overseas. Today,
>     our businesses export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay
>     their workers higher wages. But as we speak, China wants to write
>     the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put
>     our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let
>     that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the
>     playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade
>     promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new
>     trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are
>     also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”
>
>     Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in
>     promoting open markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these
>     ideals is and should remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal.
>     It is critical to our future and contained within the language we
>     are asking Congress to approve.
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150216/bacb0c8b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 16 02:18:11 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:18:11 +0100
Subject: [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
In-Reply-To: <E6F2F3DA-F830-4EBD-B162-990124B84CBD@gmail.com>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net> <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com> <E6F2F3DA-F830-4EBD-B162-990124B84CBD@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54544DEA-98A7-4676-9106-4F5F411D6DB6@consensus.pro>

Inline

On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:38, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Some of us raised global trade and IPR regimes as parts of broad IG back in the WSIS and were told in no uncertain terms that these issues were out of scope and WTO/WIPO were fully competent in their respective spheres and shouldn’t be dragged into a politicized IG framing where non-specialized, unrelated demands ruled the roost. That’s been changing a bit of late, as evidenced both by WTO public forum debates and some actions in e.g. the Council on Trade in Services.  

I think that's true and more to the point, trade policy is mandated to the WTO, ITC, and UNCTAD and that's where it will stay. "IG" cannot expand to mean everything, or it means nothing.

The point is not to try and bring trade into IG but for people who are concerned about the Internet to get involved in trade policy. The former won't happen. The latter could bring real benefits.

> But I’d caution against believing that only one country has an agenda or is a driver here.  As impacted industries have grown so too has interest in some sort of deals, but it’s a complex geometry, which is part of why things are pushing away to varying degrees from multilateral harmonization and toward plurilateral/megaregional/other small-n configurations of the reasonably like-minded to “get things done.” 

You're absolutely right here Bill, trade is anything but a one-country-driven process - as you learn as soon as you begin to participate it. The idea that the US proposing trade rules related to the Internet = the way things will turn out is simply not how trade policy works. 

> 
> Cheers
> 
> Bill
> 
>> On Feb 16, 2015, at 2:20 AM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I do agree with you parminder. Burcu and I have been saying for a long time - years - this community should pay more attention to trade. The problem is where the rules are actually made and are biding (=trade negotiations, such TPP and TTIP) there is no multistakhoderism and even worts no transparency or means of real accountability. 
>> We are losing in TPP (which has provisions worst than Acta, and where internet is impacted in at least 3 of the agreement chapters) and we lost Wyden in the fight against fast track - so it is done there...
>> TTIP is a tiny better since is begging and EU has been publishing its position documents. 
>> But another interesting thing is that India, Brazil and Russia are not part of this trade efforts ....
>> US don't want the ITU to take over the Internet, but then US make rules trough trade with countries that have less bargain power and need access on commodities 
>> It is a joke
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, February 15, 2015, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm
>> 
>> How US sees trade rules  being basically the rules for the Internet, because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for global trade, and so on.
>> 
>> And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the blunt shift here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.
>> 
>> Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose the side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters, and the World Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against unbridled 'open' trade!)   
>> 
>> Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is the US who will make the international trade rules, and thus, by derivation, the Internet rules.
>> 
>> And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many of us the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and somewhat chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent across the world supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the WEF is a good symbol. 
>> 
>> The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest of the world, or people in general (including of the US), need to state theirs. 
>> 
>> parminder 
>> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> 
>> Remarks
>> Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
>> Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
>> U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America
>> Los Angeles, CA
>> February 11, 2015
>> Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet
>> 
>> 
>> original
>> Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And trillions of devices are set to join them in the Internet of Things. Together, the connectivity of people and machines is enabling economic and social development around the world on a revolutionary scale.
>> 
>> But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around the world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of stakeholders, and strong trade agreements, with language preserving the free flow of information, to protect the Internet’s potential as the world’s engine for future growth, both at home and abroad.
>> 
>> As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to 3 billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant economic potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation and the pending trade agreements we expect Congress to consider over the coming months and years will provide that kind of protection. These agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of information and data are the default setting for nations. This will preserve the architecture that has empowered the Internet and global communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is in our interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements for many reasons, but promoting the preservation and growth of global communications and the open Internet is one of the strongest.
>> 
>> Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, has made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade negotiating objectives must reflect the fact that the Internet represents the shipping lane for 21st Century goods and services… Trade in digital goods and services is growing and driving economic growth and job creation all around the country. U.S digital exports are beating imports by large margins, but outdated trade rules threaten this growth by providing opportunities for protectionist policies overseas. The U.S. has the opportunity to establish new trade rules that preserve the Internet as a platform to share ideas and for expanding commerce..."
>> 
>> Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with nations in the Pacific community will establish rules for the preservation of those virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the transport of services and ideas, allowing startups and the voices of everyday people to challenge incumbent power in markets and ideas.
>> 
>> If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership regions coming behind agreements to preserve the free flow of information will serve as a powerful counterweight to authoritarian governments around the globe that have demonstrated a clear willingness to interfere with open markets and an open Internet. And make no mistake about it, if we do not seize every opportunity at our disposal to win commitments to an open, global Internet, we risk letting others set the rules of the road.
>> 
>> Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a threatening and destabilizing influence. The Russian government, just last month, pressured social media companies to block access to pages used to organize peaceful political protests. In China, authorities have blocked Gmail and Google’s search engine. In addition to ongoing and systematic efforts to control content and punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of political sensitivities, such measures are an effort to further diminish the Chinese people’s access to information, while effectively favoring Chinese Internet companies by blocking other providers from accessing its market. And we know they are urging others to take similar action. These trade barriers harm commerce and slow economic growth, and they produce socially oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.
>> 
>> The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than ever to bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities by eliminating barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment while raising labor, environment, and other important standards across the board. Right now, China and others are negotiating their own trade agreements and seeking to influence the rules of commerce in the region and beyond. These trade agreements fail to meet the high standards that we strive for in our free trade agreements, including protection for workers’ rights and the environment. And they don’t protect intellectual property rights or maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage.
>> 
>> We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of access to previously unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone, American Internet companies and their global community of users contribute over $141 billion in annual revenue to the overall U.S. GDP, simultaneously employing 6.6 million people. And the Internet is not simply about the World Wide Web, it is the communications platform for managing global supply chains, distributing services, and acquiring the market information necessary to succeed anywhere.
>> 
>> Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather, businesses produce product components and provide services, many of which are delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive globally and promote the capacity of businesses to innovate, the United States and our partners in the Western Hemisphere must build the Americas into a shared, digitally connected, integrated platform for global success. By working with our trade partners in Latin America and Asia to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership we are advancing this vision and making it a reality. We will set the standards with twenty-first century trade agreements.
>> 
>> We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open markets. And to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate and communicate how these two values – open markets and the open Internet - are interconnected. And we have to show that Trade Promotion Authority and our agreements embrace the values that underpin the Internet today.
>> 
>> As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open markets is the position most consistent with our progressive tradition and values.
>> 
>> It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, as we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points. Among them was number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.”
>> 
>> It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the first grant of trade negotiating authority.
>> 
>> In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it was JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our workers. Our industry, our agriculture, our mining will benefit from increased export opportunities as other nations agree to lower their tariffs. Increased exports and imports will benefit our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they handle an increased amount of trade. Lowering of our tariffs will provide an increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries will be stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer competition with the industries of other nations for an even greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, and productive system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”
>> 
>> And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most recently stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small businesses, need to sell more American products overseas. Today, our businesses export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers higher wages. But as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”
>> 
>> Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in promoting open markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these ideals is and should remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal. It is critical to our future and contained within the language we are asking Congress to approve.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> -- 
>> Carolina Rossini 
>> Vice President, International Policy
>> Public Knowledge
>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> 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/20150216/4beb790a/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/20150216/4beb790a/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 nashton at consensus.pro  Mon Feb 16 02:21:46 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:21:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
In-Reply-To: <54E19097.1000705@itforchange.net>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net> <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com> <54E19097.1000705@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <37C07619-B6DC-49B1-A0AF-D7E1AD5F03DF@consensus.pro>

I believe that isn't the real question at all, Parminder - it is this:

Does civil society want to be a part of the decisions about the Internet which will continue to be made in the institutions that have the mandate for it or does it want to insist on redrawing the map of global governance?

If the latter, good luck to you - you won't succeed and frankly, the Internet needs help from knowledgeable people right now, not at some convenient later time when the map of global governance has been redrawn.

If you want to make a difference, you need to go where the decisions are being taken and influence them. You want to ensure trade policy takes into account social issues? Help trade policymakers understand them.

Telling them to stop their work and go somewhere else first isn't going to persuade them of anything.

IMO

On 16 Feb 2015, at 07:39, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> However, the main thrust of my email was somewhat different. The question is, does civil society want to see the Internet and its governance being framed primarily in terms of commerce and trade, or do we want them to framed primarily in terms of a new global infrastructure for our social interactions, media, democratic participation, community building, and so on. Such a distinction is extremely important at this formative stage of and Internet-mediated society. And it matters  a lot what the primary framing of an issue is... The most benign trade negotiators would still think of Internet and data as commodities, that is their training and occupational requirement. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150216/4ed33154/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/20150216/4ed33154/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  Mon Feb 16 11:46:16 2015
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:46:16 -0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?CFP=3A_GigaNet_2015_Annual_Symposium=2C_Jo?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=A3o_Pessoa=2C_Brazil?=
Message-ID: <54E21ED8.4050509@gmail.com>

Dear all,

The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is now
receiving proposals for the 2015 GigaNet Symposium in João Pessoa (Brazil).


Best,
Daniel





*_10th GigaNet Annual Symposium_*

9 November 2015

João Pessoa, Brazil

 

 

* **_Call for proposals_*

Extended abstract submission deadline: 15 April 2015

Full papers due: 15 September 2015

 

On Monday, 9 November 2015, the Global Internet Governance Academic
Network (GigaNet) will hold its 10th annual symposium in João Pessoa,
Brazil. As in the past nine years the event will take place one day
before and in the same location as the United Nations Internet
Governance Forum (IGF).

GigaNet is an international association of academic researchers with a
focus on the multidisciplinary field of Internet Governance. It was
founded in 2006 and is open to researchers from all over the world who
are contributing to local, regional and international debates on
Internet Governance. More information on GigaNet's institutional
structures and activities can be found on the
website http://www.giga-net.org <http://www.giga-net.org/>.

For its 2015 annual symposium GigaNet is now receiving proposals for
papers to be presented during the event in João Pessoa. The scope of the
contributions is not limited to any field of study or topic as long as
it is relevant for global Internet Governance. Therefore, authors are
invited to submit abstracts on a broad spectrum of Internet Governance
topics that include, but are not restricted to: 

  * Changes in the Internet Governance ecosystem
  * Internet Governance 10 years after the WSIS
  * Analyzing, critiquing or supporting multistakeholder governance as
    an ideology or practice
  * The governance and legal implications of decentralized systems such
    as Bitcoin and Ethereum
  * Sustainable development as it relates to global Internet Governance
  * Technical, legal and policy initiatives for cybersecurity and their
    impact on global Internet Governance

_Submission requirements_

Abstracts should consist of 800-1000 words and describe the main
research goals and the methodological background of the paper. Proposals
can be submitted in English, Portuguese or Spanish language. Applicants
should also hand in a one page cv or submit a link to an online cv
including academic background, institutional affiliation and a list of
relevant publications. GigaNet encourages young and emerging scholars to
submit their proposals. All documents must be uploaded until 15 April
2015 to:

https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=giganet2015

 

_Selection Process and Participation_

GigaNet will select abstracts and inform the authors until mid-May 2015.
Final papers can be written and presented in English, Portuguese or
Spanish and need to be handed in by 15 September 2015.  Selected authors
who do not submit their complete papers until this date will be removed
from the program. Participation in the GigaNet symposium is free of charge.

_Timetable_

15 April 2015: deadline for submission of proposals and cv

15 May 2015: GigaNet informs selected authors by email

15 September 2015: deadline for submission of complete papers

09 November 2015: GigaNet symposium in João Pessoa, Brazil

 

_Contact_

Further details on the event can be found on GigaNet's website:

http://giga-net.org/page/symposiums-1

Queries can be send to the Program Committee Chair:
giganet2015 at easychair.org





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150216/5f7d0525/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: call_for_proposals_GigaNet_2015.pdf
Type: application/octetstream
Size: 81603 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150216/5f7d0525/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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Feb 17 02:56:43 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:56:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
In-Reply-To: <54E0D250.3080402@gmail.com>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net>
 <54E0D250.3080402@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1YNd18-0000X7-3A@igcaucus.org>

At 18:07 15/02/2015, willi uebelherr wrote:
>The USA have a fatal economical problem. They have no base. From 
>there, they have to defined the rules in the intercountries and 
>intercontinental relations. They stand with her backs on the wall. 
>Only the Dollar domination and the military shit drive this breaking empire.

Willi,

In the context of the last century, the USA was a very large island 
(cf. Zbigniew Brzezinski. "The Grand Chessboard"). With problems and 
solutions similar to the 19th century's UK.

Now the UK is a semi-regular part of Europe.

What Obama's administration is trying to avoid is a similar fate too 
soon, as the US is becoming a part of the global digitality. The 
reality is that the Internet/NDN/SDN etc. can equally reach every 
part of the planet, including the USA. In the best common interest we 
have to transition seamlessly. Controlling the transition will be 
complex, with probably more than 50 years to come.

The "multistakeholder" WEF concept is the digital Commonwealth. It 
can help co-opting production partners and temporarily protect their 
dominance. However, the "omnistakeholder" reality is starting to be 
in competition with it. New networking technologies, languages, and 
developments are emerging from everywhere, and from different 
cultures, ready to address the needs that the US industry ignores.

The real question is to know when the various digital global 
networking systems are to be accepted as having become banal. In 
other words, being mastered enough by its intelligent users for the 
omnistakeholder multitude to technically and commercially compete 
(OpenUse/Libre) with the multistakeholder approach itself, on an 
equivalent footing.

At that time, a new era will start, with two reemerging "geophysical 
face" empires: Chinese and Ottoman/Persian. Then the question is can 
an equal/even development emerge and be accepted on the "digital 
face" (it is unlikely that one may have digital empires - Google? 
Libre? RFC 6852 and its <http://open-stand.org/>http://open-stand.org 
site expects several global community markets to compete in the best 
advantage of humanity). Perhaps. All we wish for is development/peace for all.



>But for us we have to go another way. In the basic principles of our 
>InterNet we implement the independence of any big rulers, private or 
>state. Only then, we can create the InterNet, the transport system 
>of digital data as a "Inter-connection of local Net-works". And this 
>means, that we have to define the technical basis for the components 
>to do that.

Correct. This is why a non-profit Catenet Cooperative Company (one 
user = one vote) is necessary to deploy a common industrial general 
capacity of widely distributed intelligent use of the Catenet's 
common smart resources - under an "omnisharelholder" governance.

The catenet 
(<http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt>http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt) 
is the smart bandwidth and hardware that we (all of us together) 
own/pay for getting remote data in using the networking set of 
rules/protocols such as the internet one.

We are engaging this project. If you and/or some others want to be 
among the founding members, you are welcome. This is a "zero 
investment people centered" network project. It will be based on 
competence, dedication and friendship. With the target for every 
participant (and not only the American workers and small and large 
businesses) to cross develop everywhere, not only in exporting 
American products.

Being a 0 investment, and wishing to be a 0 bias, network, we decided 
to use the <http://0net.org/>http://0net.org mailing list to discuss it!

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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Tue Feb 17 02:57:44 2015
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:27:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net> <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54E2F478.4080008@ITforChange.net>

On Sunday 15 February 2015 11:50 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> I do agree with you parminder. Burcu and I have been saying for a long 
> time - years - this community should pay more attention to trade. The 
> problem is where the rules are actually made and are biding (=trade 
> negotiations, such TPP and TTIP) there is no multistakhoderism and 
> even worts no transparency or means of real accountability.
> We are losing in TPP (which has provisions worst than Acta, and where 
> internet is impacted in at least 3 of the agreement chapters) and we 
> lost Wyden in the fight against fast track - so it is done there...
> TTIP is a tiny better since is begging and EU has been publishing its 
> position documents.
> But another interesting thing is that India, Brazil and Russia are not 
> part of this trade efforts ....
> US don't want the ITU to take over the Internet, but then US make 
> rules trough trade with countries that have less bargain power and 
> need access on commodities
> It is a joke
>

The ITU is a convenient bogey raised by USG (supported by US based 
transnationals and some 'civil society' members') to prevent other 
countries from having any role in IG democratisation. Accepting that ITU 
need not be the institution to 'take over the Internet' (bogey 
statement), the USG game needs to be firmly resisted.  And global CS 
needs to firmly be with such resistance (read WEF v/s WSF)

Guru

>
> On Sunday, February 15, 2015, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm
>
>     How US sees trade rules being basically the rules for the
>     Internet, because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for
>     global trade, and so on.
>
>     And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the
>     blunt shift here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.
>
>     Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose
>     the side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters,
>     and the World Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against
>     unbridled 'open' trade!)
>
>     Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is
>     the US who will make the international trade rules, and thus, by
>     derivation, the Internet rules.
>
>     And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many
>     of us the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and
>     somewhat chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent
>     across the world supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the
>     WEF is a good symbol.
>
>     The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest
>     of the world, or people in general (including of the US), need to
>     state theirs.
>
>     parminder
>     ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>     Remarks
>     Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
>     Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International
>     Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and
>     Business Affairs
>     U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of
>     Commerce in Latin America
>     Los Angeles, CA
>     February 11, 2015
>
>
>       Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet
>
>
>       * original <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm>
>
>     Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And
>     trillions of devices are set to join them in the Internet of
>     Things. Together, the connectivity of people and machines is
>     enabling economic and social development around the world on a
>     revolutionary scale.
>
>     But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around
>     the world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of
>     stakeholders, and strong trade agreements, with language
>     preserving the free flow of information, to protect the Internet’s
>     potential as the world’s engine for future growth, both at home
>     and abroad.
>
>     As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to
>     3 billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant
>     economic potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock
>     the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open,
>     promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and
>     set digital trade rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade
>     agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation and the pending
>     trade agreements we expect Congress to consider over the coming
>     months and years will provide that kind of protection. These
>     agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of information and
>     data are the default setting for nations. This will preserve the
>     architecture that has empowered the Internet and global
>     communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is
>     in our interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move
>     forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements for many
>     reasons, but promoting the preservation and growth of global
>     communications and the open Internet is one of the strongest.
>
>     Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance
>     Committee, has made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade
>     negotiating objectives must reflect the fact that the Internet
>     represents /the shipping lane/ for 21st Century goods and
>     services… Trade in digital goods and services is growing and
>     driving economic growth and job creation all around the country.
>     U.S digital exports are beating imports by large margins, but
>     outdated trade rules threaten this growth by providing
>     opportunities for protectionist policies overseas. The U.S. has
>     the opportunity to establish new trade rules that preserve the
>     Internet as a platform to share ideas and for expanding commerce..."
>
>     Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with
>     nations in the Pacific community will establish rules for the
>     preservation of those virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the
>     transport of services and ideas, allowing startups and the voices
>     of everyday people to challenge incumbent power in markets and ideas.
>
>     If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the
>     Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment
>     Partnership regions coming behind agreements to preserve the free
>     flow of information will serve as a powerful counterweight to
>     authoritarian governments around the globe that have demonstrated
>     a clear willingness to interfere with open markets and an open
>     Internet. And make no mistake about it, if we do not seize every
>     opportunity at our disposal to win commitments to an open, global
>     Internet, we risk letting others set the rules of the road.
>
>     Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a
>     threatening and destabilizing influence. The Russian government,
>     just last month, pressured social media companies to block access
>     to pages used to organize peaceful political protests. In China,
>     authorities have blocked Gmail and Google’s search engine. In
>     addition to ongoing and systematic efforts to control content and
>     punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of political sensitivities,
>     such measures are an effort to further diminish the Chinese
>     people’s access to information, while effectively favoring Chinese
>     Internet companies by blocking other providers from accessing its
>     market. And we know they are urging others to take similar action.
>     These trade barriers harm commerce and slow economic growth, and
>     they produce socially oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.
>
>     The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and
>     e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than
>     ever to bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities
>     by eliminating barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment
>     while raising labor, environment, and other important standards
>     across the board. Right now, China and others are negotiating
>     their own trade agreements and seeking to influence the rules of
>     commerce in the region and beyond. These trade agreements fail to
>     meet the high standards that we strive for in our free trade
>     agreements, including protection for workers’ rights and the
>     environment. And they don’t protect intellectual property rights
>     or maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our workers
>     and our businesses at a disadvantage.
>
>     We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large
>     alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of
>     access to previously unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone,
>     American Internet companies and their global community of users
>     contribute over $141 billion in annual revenue to the overall U.S.
>     GDP, simultaneously employing 6.6 million people. And the Internet
>     is not simply about the World Wide Web, it is the communications
>     platform for managing global supply chains, distributing services,
>     and acquiring the market information necessary to succeed anywhere.
>
>     Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather,
>     businesses produce product components and provide services, many
>     of which are delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive
>     globally and promote the capacity of businesses to innovate, the
>     United States and our partners in the Western Hemisphere must
>     build the Americas into a shared, digitally connected, integrated
>     platform for global success. By working with our trade partners in
>     Latin America and Asia to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership
>     we are advancing this vision and making it a reality. We will set
>     the standards with twenty-first century trade agreements.
>
>     We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open
>     markets. And to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate
>     and communicate how these two values – open markets and the open
>     Internet - are interconnected. And we have to show that Trade
>     Promotion Authority and our agreements embrace the values that
>     underpin the Internet today.
>
>     As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the
>     solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our
>     progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open
>     markets is the position most consistent with our progressive
>     tradition and values.
>
>     It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace,
>     therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible
>     program, as we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points.
>     Among them was number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of
>     all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of
>     trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and
>     associating themselves for its maintenance.”
>
>     It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the
>     first grant of trade negotiating authority.
>
>     In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962,
>     it was JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from
>     increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our
>     workers. Our industry, our agriculture, our mining will benefit
>     from increased export opportunities as other nations agree to
>     lower their tariffs. Increased exports and imports will benefit
>     our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they handle an
>     increased amount of trade. Lowering of our tariffs will provide an
>     increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries
>     will be stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer
>     competition with the industries of other nations for an even
>     greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, and productive
>     system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”
>
>     And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our
>     tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most
>     recently stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small
>     businesses, need to sell more American products overseas. Today,
>     our businesses export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay
>     their workers higher wages. But as we speak, China wants to write
>     the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put
>     our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let
>     that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the
>     playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade
>     promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new
>     trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are
>     also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”
>
>     Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in
>     promoting open markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these
>     ideals is and should remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal.
>     It is critical to our future and contained within the language we
>     are asking Congress to approve.
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150217/857060a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Feb 17 03:45:59 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:45:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
In-Reply-To: <54E2F478.4080008@ITforChange.net>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net>
 <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <54E2F478.4080008@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <E1YNdnF-0000ud-1c@igcaucus.org>

At 08:57 17/02/2015, Guru wrote:
>>US don't want the ITU to take over the 
>>Internet, but then US make rules trough trade 
>>with countries that have less bargain power and need access on commoditiesÂ
>>It is a joke
>
>The ITU is a convenient bogey raised by USG 
>(supported by US based transnationals and some 
>'civil society' members') to prevent other 
>countries from having any role in IG 
>democratisation. Accepting that ITU need not be 
>the institution to 'take over the Internet' 
>(bogey statement), the USG game needs to be 
>firmly resisted.  And global CS needs to firmly 
>be with such resistance (read WEF v/s WSF)

I am afraid you are confusing the internet and 
the catenet. Keeping with the maritime metaphor, 
the catenet is the sea and the internet is the 
interactive shipping mostly used for 
distribution. Other kinds of more adequate 
specialized shippings are under development. This 
confusion between "smart hardware" we 
collectively own, and multiple networking 
software+operations add-ons (such as the 
internet) is the first source of confusion. The 
second main source of confusion is that we are 
neither interested in hardware nor software, but 
in brainware intercomprehension/knowledge.

There are three levels is the USG game :

- the correct metaphor of digital lanes.
- the whish to impose an advantageous rule for 
that game (multistakeholderism, v.s. omnistakeholderism)
- the regular national policy to develop a national interest strategy.

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 seidler at isoc.org  Tue Feb 17 06:38:14 2015
From: seidler at isoc.org (Nicolas Seidler)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:38:14 +0000
Subject: [governance] ISOC-ICC-CS, IG Community Dialogue, 2 March,
 13:00-15:00 CET
Message-ID: <86DB5BBD-9EC2-49C8-9784-2E1A2D50D818@isoc.org>

View in browser window<http://bit.ly/1zI9LB0>

[Internet Governance Community Dialogue: WSIS+10 Review]<http://bit.ly/1DC8wtn>
We invite you to participate remotely in this event and share your views.

Webex Information

Monday, 2 March 2015
13:00 – 15:00 (1:00 – 3:00PM CET)

[Join Us]<http://bit.ly/1DC8wtn>

Venue

International Chamber
of Commerce (ICC)
33 Avenue President Wilson,
75116 Paris

Agenda
13:00-14:00

Setting the scene on the WSIS
process in 2015: what is at stake?

14:00-15:00

Sharing strategies and
finding synergies


Join us to improve the review process and help develop an effective engagement strategy.

On Monday, March 2, in Paris, a group of civil society organisations, in collaboration with the Internet Society (ISOC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) will be holding a 2 hour cross-community dialogue focused on Internet governance challenges for 2015, including the WSIS+10 Overall Review.

The purpose of the event will be to raise awareness on the review process and to facilitate coordination and strategy development for effective engagement and dialogue with representatives from civil society, the technical community, the business sector and governments. The event will be held on the margins of UNESCO’s CONNECTing the Dots conference.

For more information contact: wsis.dialogue.paris at gmail.com<mailto:wsis.dialogue.paris at gmail.com>



[Logos]



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150217/608474c9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: header.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 62841 bytes
Desc: header.jpg
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150217/608474c9/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: btn_joinus.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3140 bytes
Desc: btn_joinus.jpg
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150217/608474c9/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logos.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 25579 bytes
Desc: logos.jpg
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150217/608474c9/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb 18 01:37:00 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:07:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] Monetising socialisation
Message-ID: <54E4330C.3000401@itforchange.net>

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/face-how-facebook-drove-us-away-dave-pilcher
(Also reproduced below this email)

It is bad, even if here it is monetising social connect between a 
business and a 'follower' group that 'it' has created. Smacks of public 
street pay-off rackets involving petty businesses that most police 
forces in developing countries live off.

It is unthinkable that when every small and big business segment with 
direct public interest implication - whether it be banks or cab services 
- is so highly regulated, Internet monopolies that have captured whole 
online utility sections, social networking being an important one, 
should be left completely unregulated. And they can at their will tweak 
their algorithms that involves shifting the very terms of online social 
discourse and interaction. Absolutely unthinkable!!

But to make the unthinkable possible, these business actors and their 
political backers - chiefly the US gov - has invested huge amount of 
resources, and cunning, including aimed at cultivating civil society in 
the global IG space. And it is a measure of their great success that 
these most important of global governance issues never reach the key 
global IG spaces!

In fact, my organisation, IT for Change, proposed a workshop on 
"Regulating global Internet businesses", for IGF 2013. It was rejected 
as irrelevant or not appropriate by the IGF's Multistakeholder Advisory 
Group. Which only shows how much the IGF and the MAG is captured, and 
has begun to act as a filter against, rather than a facilitator for, 
meaningful global IG discussions. Actually it is ready to act even more 
loyal than the king, given that the WEF 2015 had a workshop on a very 
similar topic, which was rejected as irrelevant/ inappropriate by the 
MAG of the IGF.

parminder


  About Face: How Facebook Drove Us Away

  * Feb. 15, 2015
  * 3 min read
  * original
    <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/face-how-facebook-drove-us-away-dave-pilcher>


Two weeks ago we made the decision to delete our Facebook presence.

Unlike some companies that have left the social network in a huff, we 
aren't angry. We aren’t bitter or resentful. No angst.

We approached our decision from a business-like perspective, carefully 
analyzing the return on investment. The same way we do for other forms 
of marketing and advertising; you know, the way any company should 
evaluate the channels it uses. We saw it just wasn’t worth it.

Like many companies, we fell into the category of those who feel that 
time and money spent on Facebook is a waste. 
<http://www.freeportpress.com/dollars-spent-on-facebook-is-a-waste-for-most-brands-says-new-research/> 
It wasn’t that we didn’t like connecting with our fans and friends 
there; rather it was recent changes in Facebook’s promotional policies 
<http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/11/news-feed-fyi-reducing-overly-promotional-page-posts-in-news-feed/> 
that made the likelihood of our fans even seeing our posts slim to none.

We gave it a good three years. We paid FB to advertise our company’s 
page; we added our FB page link to every employee’s e-mail signature, 
noted the URL in our advertising, linked our page on every page of our 
website. . . and over those three years we built up 6,000+ followers. We 
posted regularly, often two posts per day, and were careful to avoid 
promotional content and ad pitches – our posts, like our blog, centered 
on industry news and insights that our followers could likely use in 
their own work.

As Facebook began to limit newsfeed exposure for brands 
<http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/11/news-feed-fyi-reducing-overly-promotional-page-posts-in-news-feed/> 
like ours, our daily posts might reach between 30 and 70 followers . . . 
out of 6,000+. Let’s call that around 1% on a good day. If we wanted to 
reach more folks (around 20%) that would cost us $5 for each “promoted” 
post.

So let’s say we paid $5 per post for 8 posts per week. That’s $2080 per 
year to reach the AUDIENCE THAT WE BUILT WITH OUR OWN CONTENT. And 
that’s only reaching around 1,200 people. Want to reach them all? You’re 
talking 4 times that or more.

Okay, so maybe we are a little miffed that Facebook has decided for us – 
and our followers – who we should be allowed to talk to each day. That’s 
the opposite of what socializing is all about. But that’s their business 
model, and we get to take it or leave it. We left it.

We don’t object to paying for promoted posts that reach NEW followers; 
nothing is free in this big old world and we get that every company has 
to make money. The magazine industry exists thanks to paid advertising, 
with brands seeking to engage via media. But organic reach – that 
carefully built engagement of followers that took so long to build – is 
now a thing of the past. You cultivated the relationship, but Facebook 
decides how often you get to connect with them. They have become the 
social chaperones of the digital age.

We join many other companies who have grown frustrated with Facebook 
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2013/04/22/should-you-leave-facebook-edgerank-confusion-promoted-posts-and-why-small-business-owners-are-exceedingly-frustrated/>, 
some leaving in rather spectacular flameouts like Eat24’s infamous exit 
<http://www.freeportpress.com/facebook-youre-not-yourself-when-youre-hungry/>. 
Facebook’s snarky reply 
<http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/facebook-exec-snarkily-confirms-brands-big-fear-their-content-isnt-important-156662> 
to made it clear that they couldn’t care less what businesses thought of 
their new algorithms, asserting that organic brand content was not 
something that their users want to see -- even when they’ve indicated 
that, yes, indeed, they do.

Will we be back? Never say never. As any marketing or media channel 
evolves, they’ll offer advertisers and marketers options that might or 
might not make sense. If it looks good, we’ll try it. If not, we do not 
feel compelled to be on Facebook because “everyone has to be,” which has 
been the breathless mantra repeated by tech-savvy digital marketers in 
the past few years.

In this age of data driven marketing, it should be up to the brand, not 
the platform, to decide who sees their messages. That is the crux of 
effective marketing.

Late last year Facebook announced some new targeting tools 
<http://media.fb.com/2014/12/10/new-tools-and-insights-for-publishers-2/> that 
should “allow publishers to serve content to specific subsets of people 
who like their pages, pull down time sensitive posts to avoid displaying 
outdated content and, optionally, allow Facebook to automatically post 
articles that are already popular on the social network,” according to 
Martin Beck in MarketingLand 
<http://www.freeportpress.com/is-facebook-trying-to-save-face-with-publishers/>. 
Those tools are only available (at this point) to the big media 
organizations with, we imagine, robust marketing budgets to match. It’s 
on them to decide if their investment is worth it, and if they want to 
let Facebook make these critical marketing decisions on their behalf.

Meanwhile, we will continue to engage with our followers and fans on 
Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/FreeportPress> and LinkedIn 
<https://twitter.com/freeportpress>, where our content is not filtered 
out and we aren’t charged to reach the audience that we’ve built. We 
share many of our posts on LinkedIn with specific groups based around 
industry interests, and often engage in some great discussions there. We 
will also reach many of you with our Weekly Newsletter 
<http://www.freeportpress.com/newsletter/> via Constant Contact.

/We look forward to seeing you there./ See ya ‘round, Mark.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150218/0dfb58b2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From drc at virtualized.org  Wed Feb 18 14:33:09 2015
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:33:09 -0800
Subject: [governance] Monetising socialisation
In-Reply-To: <54E4330C.3000401@itforchange.net>
References: <54E4330C.3000401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <A409F25A-822D-4A14-B79C-2526E94D8966@virtualized.org>

Parminder,

> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/face-how-facebook-drove-us-away-dave-pilcher <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/face-how-facebook-drove-us-away-dave-pilcher>
> 
> It is bad, even if here it is monetising social connect between a business and a 'follower' group that 'it' has created.

I can understand why they abandoned Facebook.  I gave up on Facebook myself a couple of years ago, albeit for different reasons (didn't have the time to deal with their constantly mutating privacy policy and its implications).  Can't say I've missed it.

> Smacks of public street pay-off rackets involving petty businesses that most police forces in developing countries live off.

Except by definition, police forces have the authority of law behind them: you generally don't have a choice whether you obey the police or not (at least if you want to stay out of jail or worse).

If you don't like what Facebook does, instead of trying to spin up a global regulatory regime to try to force your will on a private company, why not simply stop using them?

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150218/f0c47a21/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150218/f0c47a21/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 dave at difference.com.au  Thu Feb 19 04:15:05 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:15:05 +0800
Subject: [governance] JNC position on article 35 of the Tunis Agenda
 (was Re: Towards an Internet Social Forum)
In-Reply-To: <20150206200934.23931db6@quill>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54CF483B.2060304@acm.org> <02a001d03ee9$27700820$7 6501860$@gmai l.com> <F32295EB-ABA0-44AA-A13D-F2AC061D9366@difference.com.au> <00db01d04108$33ad3ec0$9b07bc40$@gmail.com> <FA96C0AD-C254-4F3A-B5F5-2BC7D7EB0082@difference.com.au> <20150206200934.23931db6@quill>
Message-ID: <04BC9C8F-62B1-4973-A582-2DDEB2DC6C28@difference.com.au>

My apologies for the delay. I blame ICANN, and the ICANN cold/cough that followed many of us home and has proven to be quite debilitating.


On 7 Feb 2015, at 3:09 am, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Dear all
> 
> Just a quick clarification, as I currently lack the time that would be
> required to enter this debate substantively:
> 
> There has not been any "JNC position at WGEC", as JNC has not been a
> WGEC participant. In fact when WGEC was constituted, JNC hadn't even
> been formed yet. However, to my best knowledge, what Parminder (who
> participated in WGEC, although not as a representative of JNC) actually
> said at WGEC is nevertheless fully consistent with JNC's positions.

	A relevant clarification, thank you. Though if the position is the same as the position that JNC would take on currently, then the distinction may not be that significant.

> 
> This cannot be said in regard to how several others have been
> characterizing JNC's (and also Parminder's) positions: There have been
> several public mis-characterizations that are full of assertions of
> strawman positions which are very easy to disagree with.
> 
> 
> The actual position which JNC has adopted and published in regard to
> this matter is the following:
> 
> "Just Net Coalition agrees with the spirit of paragraph 35 of the Tunis
> Agenda in that that governments have specific public policy roles and
> responsibilities, and other stakeholders cannot claim a similar
> position as governments in this regard. However, we consider that the
> description of the role given to civil society in this section is
> inadequate. While the text does speak of an important role that civil
> society should continue to play, this is inadequate because the
> exclusive mention of 'community level' and not 'policy level' gives an
> unbalanced view of civil society's role. While community level work and
> linkages constitute the key legitimising factors of civil society,
> civil society also has a strong role to play at the policy level in
> terms of 'deepening democracy' whereby it brings to the policy table
> representation of otherwise under-represented voices."
> 
> (This is the content of note 5 in JNC's October 14, 2014 Statement to
> the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference of the International
> Telecommunication Union.)

	This is a valuable clarification, but the JNC backing the position that :
	• Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States.
Is still problematic to me, and I would presume many others. A situation in which ultimate authority for public policy issues must always rest exclusively with states is still very problematic, and still raises the same problematic issues of JNC by implication wanting to move to more intergovernmental and state based policy fora.
	But it is appreciated that JNC is happy with the status quo of civil society participation in policy issues, and does not specifically desire to remove civil society from policy discussion beyond the community level. .
Would the JNC then agree, or disagree, with the NetMundial Principles statement that:
The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion
	which would imply that public policy in general would be a matter of state sovereign authority only for some issues?

	Regards

		David


-------------- 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/20150219/5bf7d1de/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb 19 11:26:03 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:56:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] Monetising socialisation
In-Reply-To: <A409F25A-822D-4A14-B79C-2526E94D8966@virtualized.org>
References: <54E4330C.3000401@itforchange.net> <A409F25A-822D-4A14-B79C-2526E94D8966@virtualized.org>
Message-ID: <54E60E9B.7090008@itforchange.net>




On Thursday 19 February 2015 01:03 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Parminder,
> snip
>
>> Smacks of public street pay-off rackets involving petty businesses 
>> that most police forces in developing countries live off.
>
> Except by definition, police forces have the authority of law behind 
> them: you generally don't have a choice whether you obey the police or 
> not (at least if you want to stay out of jail or worse).
>
> If you don't like what Facebook does, instead of trying to spin up a 
> global regulatory regime to try to force your will on a private 
> company, why not simply stop using them?
>
> Regards,
> -drc

Dear David

I am not sure how to respond to this. There may be some kind of 
ideological polarisation here, if you really think that no matter what 
be the level of market power involved (and facebook's extreme market 
power is so obvious) or how deeply public interest oriented a particular 
service is (again, there can be little doubt in this regard in case of a 
basic social networking platform), the paradigm of 'individual choice' 
and the market is enough for all situation - we just do not ever require 
specific policies or regulation.

BTW, would you in that case also oppose net neutrality regulation, which 
again can be read as trying to force 'someone's will' on a private 
company - and of course there are people who use the same words for NN 
regulation? And what about regulating financial capital that so 
thoroughly ruined the world economy just a few years back? Can people 
just not stop using the telco or the bank they do not like rather than 
seek regulation?

  I myself do not use Facebook, but I am not talking here of a personal 
problem, rather a social one. It bothers me a lot professionally what 
the emerging digital techno-social architectures mean for people's 
rights, vibrant democratic media, transfer of value/ wealth across 
people, groups, classes, countries, etc, cultural rights and diversity, 
society's control over its socialisation processes (which is why 
education, and also media, is such a regulated sector), and so on. It is 
in this regard that I made a tentative construction of the problematique 
of the dangers of Facebook arbitrarily monetising everyday processes of 
socialising, without any public interest oversight. If this does not 
outrage you, I will accept that viewpoint as well.

regards
parminder



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150219/d0f298d7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 19 20:08:02 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:08:02 -0800
Subject: [governance] Monetising socialisation
In-Reply-To: <A409F25A-822D-4A14-B79C-2526E94D8966@virtualized.org>
References: <54E4330C.3000401@itforchange.net> <A409F25A-822D-4A14-B79C-2526E94D8966@virtualized.org>
Message-ID: <1746201d04ca9$adfb83b0$09f28b10$@gmail.com>

I think that this below rather complicates things since (if this law suit
goes through) the relationship between FB and its customers is something
more than a purely take it or leave it commercial relationship.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/19/native-american-activist-f
acebook-lawsuit-real-name

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad
Sent: February 18, 2015 11:33 AM
To: parminder
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Monetising socialisation

 

Parminder,

 

 
<https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/face-how-facebook-drove-us-away-dave-pilcher
>
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/face-how-facebook-drove-us-away-dave-pilcher


It is bad, even if here it is monetising social connect between a business
and a 'follower' group that 'it' has created. 

 

I can understand why they abandoned Facebook.  I gave up on Facebook myself
a couple of years ago, albeit for different reasons (didn't have the time to
deal with their constantly mutating privacy policy and its implications).
Can't say I've missed it.





Smacks of public street pay-off rackets involving petty businesses that most
police forces in developing countries live off.

 

Except by definition, police forces have the authority of law behind them:
you generally don't have a choice whether you obey the police or not (at
least if you want to stay out of jail or worse).  

 

If you don't like what Facebook does, instead of trying to spin up a global
regulatory regime to try to force your will on a private company, why not
simply stop using them?

 

Regards,

-drc

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150219/97a51be6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From drc at virtualized.org  Thu Feb 19 20:29:47 2015
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:29:47 -0800
Subject: [governance] Monetising socialisation
In-Reply-To: <54E60E9B.7090008@itforchange.net>
References: <54E4330C.3000401@itforchange.net> <A409F25A-822D-4A14-B79C-2526E94D8966@virtualized.org> <54E60E9B.7090008@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <EF6ED30C-9D84-4FE9-82F0-D9537B5D82AC@virtualized.org>

Parminder,

> if you really think that no matter what be the level of market power involved

Strawman.

> (and facebook's extreme market power is so obvious)


The article you posted suggested some folks do not believe it too extreme.

> or how deeply public interest oriented a particular service is

Strawman.

> (again, there can be little doubt in this regard in case of a basic social networking platform),

There is plenty of doubt.

An alternative perspective: Facebook is a web-based application operated by a commercial company based in the US.  It is one of a myriad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites>) of similar applications, standing out only in their number of users and (as a result) a large amount of money (well, ok, and their propensity to frequently fold, spindle, and mutilate their privacy policies).

They are not a monopoly (as the article you posted proves).  They do not provide critical infrastructure.  As both you and I demonstrate, it is possible to live quite comfortably without their service.

Back in the mid- to late-90s, I remember folks made similar "basic service"-type claims of AOL, arguing it needed to be regulated. You don't hear that so much anymore. If you're going to propose a global regulatory regime to impose your will on a commercial company based in the US offering a web-based application, it might be worthwhile first determining whether or not (as a proctologist will tell you) "this too shall pass."

> the paradigm of 'individual choice' and the market is enough for all situation - we just do not ever require specific policies or regulation.

Strawman.

> BTW, would you in that case also oppose net neutrality regulation,

You'd first have to define what you mean by "net neutrality" before I could hazard a guess whether I'd support or oppose it.

> And what about regulating financial capital that so thoroughly ruined the world economy just a few years back? Can people just not stop using the telco or the bank they do not like rather than seek regulation?

Red herring.

> It is in this regard that I made a tentative construction of the problematique of the dangers of Facebook arbitrarily monetising everyday processes of socialising,     without any public interest oversight. If this does not outrage you, I will accept that viewpoint as well.


People voluntarily choose to allow Facebook to monetize their socialization. There is no requirement to use Facebook service. If their business practices outrage me, I choose not to use their service. Seems a much simpler approach than trying to devise a global regulatory regime to regulate the monetization of "everyday processes of socialization."

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150219/0e1eabfc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150219/0e1eabfc/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 nashton at consensus.pro  Fri Feb 20 01:56:16 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 07:56:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] Monetising socialisation
In-Reply-To: <EF6ED30C-9D84-4FE9-82F0-D9537B5D82AC@virtualized.org>
References: <54E4330C.3000401@itforchange.net> <A409F25A-822D-4A14-B79C-2526E94D8966@virtualized.org> <54E60E9B.7090008@itforchange.net> <EF6ED30C-9D84-4FE9-82F0-D9537B5D82AC@virtualized.org>
Message-ID: <66E13195-797C-49AF-A5E2-49A7EAECDE46@consensus.pro>

FWIW, I don't think this is getting anyone anywhere. If you don't like FB, don't use it - I'll be happy to extend Ello invites to those who want them; just shout.

;)

We've got really serious problems in the way the Internet's being abused today - just look at the SIM card disclosures of last night. Is discussing regulation of a single social media company honestly the main issue to be worried about right now?

On 20 Feb 2015, at 02:29, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> Parminder,
> 
>> if you really think that no matter what be the level of market power involved
> 
> Strawman.
> 
>> (and facebook's extreme market power is so obvious)
> 
> 
> The article you posted suggested some folks do not believe it too extreme.
> 
>> or how deeply public interest oriented a particular service is
> 
> Strawman.
> 
>> (again, there can be little doubt in this regard in case of a basic social networking platform),
> 
> There is plenty of doubt.
> 
> An alternative perspective: Facebook is a web-based application operated by a commercial company based in the US.  It is one of a myriad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites) of similar applications, standing out only in their number of users and (as a result) a large amount of money (well, ok, and their propensity to frequently fold, spindle, and mutilate their privacy policies). 
> 
> They are not a monopoly (as the article you posted proves).  They do not provide critical infrastructure.  As both you and I demonstrate, it is possible to live quite comfortably without their service.
> 
> Back in the mid- to late-90s, I remember folks made similar "basic service"-type claims of AOL, arguing it needed to be regulated. You don't hear that so much anymore. If you're going to propose a global regulatory regime to impose your will on a commercial company based in the US offering a web-based application, it might be worthwhile first determining whether or not (as a proctologist will tell you) "this too shall pass."
> 
>> the paradigm of 'individual choice' and the market is enough for all situation - we just do not ever require specific policies or regulation.  
> 
> Strawman.
> 
>> BTW, would you in that case also oppose net neutrality regulation,
> 
> You'd first have to define what you mean by "net neutrality" before I could hazard a guess whether I'd support or oppose it.
> 
>> And what about regulating financial capital that so thoroughly ruined the world economy just a few years back? Can people just not stop using the telco or the bank they do not like rather than seek regulation? 
> 
> Red herring.
> 
>> It is in this regard that I made a tentative construction of the problematique of the dangers of Facebook arbitrarily monetising everyday processes of socialising, without any public interest oversight. If this does not outrage you, I will accept that viewpoint as well. 
> 
> 
> People voluntarily choose to allow Facebook to monetize their socialization. There is no requirement to use Facebook service. If their business practices outrage me, I choose not to use their service. Seems a much simpler approach than trying to devise a global regulatory regime to regulate the monetization of "everyday processes of socialization."
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150220/e12c2c57/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/20150220/e12c2c57/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 shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Mon Feb 23 05:44:47 2015
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:44:47 +0500
Subject: [governance] Pakistan Cyberspace Conference 2015
In-Reply-To: <66E13195-797C-49AF-A5E2-49A7EAECDE46@consensus.pro>
References: <54E4330C.3000401@itforchange.net> <A409F25A-822D-4A14-B79C-2526E94D8966@virtualized.org> <54E60E9B.7090008@itforchange.net> <EF6ED30C-9D84-4FE9-82F0-D9537B5D82AC@virtualized.org> <66E13195-797C-49AF-A5E2-49A7EAECDE46@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <54EB049F.9030803@bytesforall.pk>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Dear Colleagues,

Bytes for All (B4A), Pakistan is a human rights organization and a
research think tank with a focus on Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs). It experiments with and organizes debate on the
relevance of ICTs for sustainable development and strengthening human
rights movement in the country. Its strategic plan delivers in four key
result areas. More information is accessible at www.bytesforall.pk.

This is just to share the information about Pakistan Cyberspace
Conference to be held on 26 - 27 February, 2015 at Marriott Hotel,
Islamabad, Pakistan.

In April 2015, the Netherlands will host the fourth Global Cyberspace
Conference, where government ministers, industry leaders and civil
society organizations from around the world will converge to discuss
issues related to cyberspace governance, cyber security and freedom on
the Internet. In preparation for the Global Cyberspace Conference in the
Netherlands, Bytes For All is organizing a national cyberspace
conference to raise awareness about the importance of issues related to
cyberspace governance among Pakistani parliamentarians, government
officials, business leaders, civil society, media and the general public.

Several national and international experts on Internet rights,
governance and policy will be joining us at this event. Foreign experts
include globally renowned Professor Ronald Deibert (Citizen Lab,
University of Toronto), Dr. Ben Wagner (University of Viadrina), Mr.
Byoung-il (Jinbonet, South Korea) and Ms. Sahar Habib Ghazi (Managing
Editor, Global Voices). Pakistani parliamentarians include Senator
Mushahid Hussain Sayed, Dr. Arif Alvi and Ms. Maiza Hameed.

More information about the event is accessible at www.cyberspace.pk.

If you know of people, who will have interest and can join us, please
forward this invitation to them. While the event is open but
registration is requested for logistical reasons. Registration is at
https://www.cyberspace.pk/registration.html


Yours sincerely


Shahzad



- -- 
Shahzad Ahmad
Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall
Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981

PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=fR9m
-----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 joly at punkcast.com  Mon Feb 23 16:59:41 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:59:41 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST 6pm TODAY: Overhead and Online: Technological
 Change and Gaps in Global Governance
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2yBGNi2cCKk=d9esyaC4A8GEduyPoikwP7hYnjz2oRVg@mail.gmail.com>

Another great IG session from the IIEP. Starts 6pm today, archive will be
available after.  Esther Brimmer has been described as "Foggy Bottom’s
maven of International Organization Affairs"
<http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/07/esther-brimmer-exits-state-department-for-ivory-tower/>,
for
more see her Wikipedia entry <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Brimmer>


 joly posted: "Today, Monday 23 February 2015 the Institute of
International Economic Policy (IIEP) present Overhead and Online:
Technological Change and Gaps in Global Governance. Esther Brimmer, former
assistant secretary for international organization affairs at the "

[image: Webcast]
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/overheadandonline>Today,*
Monday 23 February 2015* the *Institute of International Economic Policy
<http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/> *(IIEP) present *Overhead and Online:
Technological Change and Gaps in Global Governance
<http://elliott.gwu.edu/events-calendar?trumbaEmbed=view%3Devent%26eventid%3D113773489>*.
*Esther Brimmer*, former assistant secretary for international organization
affairs at the U.S. Department of State, will discuss ways in which new
technologies interact with global governance. Innovation and technological
change are hallmarks of modern life. Aviation and telecommunications enable
people and ideas to cross borders rapidly. Over the course of the last
century, governments and other stakeholders developed procedures to manage
the flow of these international contacts. Now innovations in aviation and
in the reach of the Internet expose gaps in two very different
long-standing international arrangements. This year policymakers and
shapers will make important choices in these areas. In the *2015 Shapiro
Lecture*, Professor Brimmer will highlight ways in which new technologies
stretch two global governance regimes and suggest steps to bridge the gaps.
The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/overheadandonline>* channel.





*What: Overhead and Online: Technological Change and Gaps in Global
Governance
<http://elliott.gwu.edu/events-calendar?trumbaEmbed=view%3Devent%26eventid%3D113773489>
Where: Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington
University, Washington DC When: Monday 23 February 2015 6pm-7:30pm EST |
23:00-00:30 UTC Webcast:
https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/overheadandonline
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/overheadandonline> Twitter:
@iiepgw <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=iiepgw&src=typd>*


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7566#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7566#comments>




*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7566




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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/20150223/aed469b1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Tue Feb 24 00:46:53 2015
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:46:53 +0900
Subject: [governance] unConference in Paris, Mar 5-6
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKjJwOoNhtg=DdoJEEiu33nPwr90cu2d_tBfAfS8b3o4Zw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, I am participating in the uNESCO conference early March in Paris.
AND, after that on Mar 5-6, I will co-host a different meeting or
unConference.

It's not directly related to the Internet Governance (yet), but
potentially, related the future of the use of Internet and its governance.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7m9U7fihFoIRnhCT1NYenRpRG8/view?usp=sharing

"unConference on the Future of Industry, Mobility and Making"
in the afternoon of Mar 5 and 6 - at the Fab Lab La Villette, in the Museum
of Science and Industry, Paris.
http://www.cite-sciences.fr/fr/accueil/

It is "by invitation only" and you are welcome to join - so if you could
stay longer and come, please contact me.

best,

izumi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150224/e8641cb7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Tue Feb 24 03:56:02 2015
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:56:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] unConference in Paris, Mar 5-6
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKjJwOoNhtg=DdoJEEiu33nPwr90cu2d_tBfAfS8b3o4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKjJwOoNhtg=DdoJEEiu33nPwr90cu2d_tBfAfS8b3o4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D111FAF9.71B80%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

Thank You, Izumi,

will be nice to meet You at the conference.

However, I have already my return ticket and cannot make it for the second one.

Best regards
Wolfgang
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek
Institute for International Law and International Relations
University of Graz
Universitätsstraße 15, A4
A-8010 Graz, Austria
Tel.: +43/316/380/3411
Fax: +43/316/380/9455

Von: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org<mailto:iza at anr.org>>
Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org<mailto:iza at anr.org>>
Datum: Dienstag, 24. Februar 2015 06:46
An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
Betreff: [governance] unConference in Paris, Mar 5-6

Hi, I am participating in the uNESCO conference early March in Paris.
AND, after that on Mar 5-6, I will co-host a different meeting or unConference.

It's not directly related to the Internet Governance (yet), but
potentially, related the future of the use of Internet and its governance.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7m9U7fihFoIRnhCT1NYenRpRG8/view?usp=sharing

"unConference on the Future of Industry, Mobility and Making"
in the afternoon of Mar 5 and 6 - at the Fab Lab La Villette, in the Museum of Science and Industry, Paris.
http://www.cite-sciences.fr/fr/accueil/

It is "by invitation only" and you are welcome to join - so if you could stay longer and come, please contact me.

best,

izumi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150224/0889f366/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Tue Feb 24 07:20:14 2015
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:20:14 +0000
Subject: [governance] unConference in Paris, Mar 5-6
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKjJwOoNhtg=DdoJEEiu33nPwr90cu2d_tBfAfS8b3o4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKjJwOoNhtg=DdoJEEiu33nPwr90cu2d_tBfAfS8b3o4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <v11ZguJ+xG7UFAF7@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<CA+YNoKjJwOoNhtg=DdoJEEiu33nPwr90cu2d_tBfAfS8b3o4Zw at mail.gmail.com>, at 
14:46:53 on Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes
>Hi, I am participating in the uNESCO conference early March in Paris.
>AND, after that on Mar 5-6, I will co-host a different meeting or 
>unConference

By analogy with Papers, and Non-papers perhaps your meeting might be 
called a non-conference?

http://esharp.eu/jargon/non-paper/
-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Tue Feb 24 08:31:02 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:31:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] Monetising socialisation
In-Reply-To: <66E13195-797C-49AF-A5E2-49A7EAECDE46@consensus.pro>
References: <54E4330C.3000401@itforchange.net> <A409F25A-822D-4A14-B79C-2526E94D8966@virtualized.org> <54E60E9B.7090008@itforchange.net> <EF6ED30C-9D84-4FE9-82F0-D9537B5D82AC@virtualized.org> <66E13195-797C-49AF-A5E2-49A7EAECDE46@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <54EC7D16.90608@apc.org>

Dear all

What this discussion highlights for me is exactly how challenging
regulation of social networking platforms and global internet companies
is in general.

There are competition issues, human rights issues including privacy and
expression, taxation issues, internet openness issues, access to
knowledge issues and more.

And while it is easy to dismiss these platforms many people all over the
world are using them in quite meaningful ways for social and political
engagement.

They also create a more level playing field for academics from the
global south, for example, who are able to disseminate their work
through them.

They provide activists with powerful tools, but they also make them more
vulnerable in some ways.

Of course we have the choice to not use them but that does not alter the
fact that millions of people are, and that it is therefore important
that these platforms be subject to pubic interest checks and balances -
in my view.

Relying on traditional models of government-based regulation is often
not effective, and can in fact lead to complicity between these
companies and governments in some cases - and in other cases individual
rights would receive even less protection if these platforms were
obliged to provide national governments with information about users
whenever they request it.

Self-regulation is one part of this process, but is not enough on its own.

If our goal is to establish public interest oversight - and I think this
is both necessary and appropriate in the case of 'global' social
networking platforms - we need to engage with these companies directly,
with industry bodies/associations as well as explore other mechanisms
ranging from those used in Europe (courts and regulators) to civil
society watchdogs such as the fantastic Ranking Digital Rights project.

https://rankingdigitalrights.org/

APC was quite successful last year with this effort to rank social
networking platforms from the perspective of combating violence against
women.

https://www.takebackthetech.net/sites/default/files/2014-reportcard-en.pdf

Also useful are the Rugge Principles.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf

Anriette


On 20/02/2015 08:56, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> FWIW, I don't think this is getting anyone anywhere. If you don't like FB, don't use it - I'll be happy to extend Ello invites to those who want them; just shout.
> 
> ;)
> 
> We've got really serious problems in the way the Internet's being abused today - just look at the SIM card disclosures of last night. Is discussing regulation of a single social media company honestly the main issue to be worried about right now?
> 
> On 20 Feb 2015, at 02:29, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> 
>> Parminder,
>>
>>> if you really think that no matter what be the level of market power involvedno
>>> (and facebook's extreme market power is so obvious)
>>
>>
>> The article you posted suggested some folks do not believe it too extreme.
>>
>>> or how deeply public interest oriented a particular service is
>>
>> Strawman.
>>
>>> (again, there can be little doubt in this regard in case of a basic social networking platform),
>>
>> There is plenty of doubt.
>>
>> An alternative perspective: Facebook is a web-based application operated by a commercial company based in the US.  It is one of a myriad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites) of similar applications, standing out only in their number of users and (as a result) a large amount of money (well, ok, and their propensity to frequently fold, spindle, and mutilate their privacy policies). 
>>
>> They are not a monopoly (as the article you posted proves).  They do not provide critical infrastructure.  As both you and I demonstrate, it is possible to live quite comfortably without their service.
>>
>> Back in the mid- to late-90s, I remember folks made similar "basic service"-type claims of AOL, arguing it needed to be regulated. You don't hear that so much anymore. If you're going to propose a global regulatory regime to impose your will on a commercial company based in the US offering a web-based application, it might be worthwhile first determining whether or not (as a proctologist will tell you) "this too shall pass."
>>
>>> the paradigm of 'individual choice' and the market is enough for all situation - we just do not ever require specific policies or regulation.  
>>
>> Strawman.
>>
>>> BTW, would you in that case also oppose net neutrality regulation,
>>
>> You'd first have to define what you mean by "net neutrality" before I could hazard a guess whether I'd support or oppose it.
>>
>>> And what about regulating financial capital that so thoroughly ruined the world economy just a few years back? Can people just not stop using the telco or the bank they do not like rather than seek regulation? 
>>
>> Red herring.
>>
>>> It is in this regard that I made a tentative construction of the problematique of the dangers of Facebook arbitrarily monetising everyday processes of socialising, without any public interest oversight. If this does not outrage you, I will accept that viewpoint as well. 
>>
>>
>> People voluntarily choose to allow Facebook to monetize their socialization. There is no requirement to use Facebook service. If their business practices outrage me, I choose not to use their service. Seems a much simpler approach than trying to devise a global regulatory regime to regulate the monetization of "everyday processes of socialization."
>>
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 joly at punkcast.com  Tue Feb 24 08:56:09 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 08:56:09 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Rewriting the Communications Act: An
 Introductory Event
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3U45CJWAZ_Z7jJXRRHNeJuo20etN=dKiPz8joZ6X8OBQ@mail.gmail.com>

This is just starting. The opening keynote is by Internet SocietyTrustee
David Farber.  For those more interested in International Governance there
is a simultaneous event over at ITIF- The Importance of Cross-Border Data
Flows for Traditional Industries
<http://www.itif.org/events/importance-cross-border-data-flows-traditional-industries>
also
at 9am EST.


 joly posted: "Today Tuesday February 24 2015 the Georgetown University
McDonough School of Business presents Rewriting the Communications Act: An
Introductory Event. After more than a year of preparation, all eyes are on
Capitol Hill in 2015 as Congress prepares to und"


[image: mcdonough] <http://cbpp.georgetown.edu/>Today *Tuesday February 24
2015* the *Georgetown University McDonough School of Business
<http://cbpp.georgetown.edu/>* presents *Rewriting the Communications Act:
An Introductory Event*
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/rewriting-the-communications-act-an-introductory-event-tickets-15696461539>.
After more than a year of preparation, all eyes are on Capitol Hill in 2015
as Congress prepares to undertake one of its most important tasks affecting
a significant part of the digital economy: rewriting the Communications Act
of 1934. In keeping with the Center's staying ahead of the issues at the
nexus of business and public policy, the Center's Evolution of Regulation
and Innovation Project is pleased to announce the first of a series of
convenings focused on eliciting the best ideas for how a new regime for the
tech, media and broadband sectors should look. A panel of experts will
address the technology, economic, political, and policy contexts of the
current Congressional efforts, offer different perspectives that will
identify common ground among parties that will be affected by a rewrite,
explore areas of significant uncertainty, and elucidate the policy drivers
that will shape the work ahead. Keynote address: *David Farber*,
Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy,
School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University. Panel: *Larry
Downes*, Project Director, Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy
Project on the Evolution of Regulation and Innovation; *Peter Rysavy*,
President and Founder, Rysavy Research; *Glenn Woroch*, Adjunct Professor,
University of California, Berkeley and Senior Policy Scholar, Georgetown
Center for Business and Public Policy; *John W. Mayo*, Professor of
Business, Economics and Public Policy, Georgetown University and Executive
Director, Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy;
Moderator: *Carolyn Brandon*, Senior Industry and Innovation Fellow,
Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy. The event will be webcast
live
<http://cbpp.georgetown.edu/2015/02/23/communications-act-live-streamed/>.





*What: Rewriting the Communications Act: An Introductory Event
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/rewriting-the-communications-act-an-introductory-event-tickets-15696461539>
Where: Georgetown University McDonough School of Business, Washington DC
When: Tuesday February 24 2015 9am-11am EST | 14:00-16:00 UTC Webcast:
http://cbpp.georgetown.edu/2015/02/23/communications-act-live-streamed/
<http://cbpp.georgetown.edu/2015/02/23/communications-act-live-streamed/>
Twitter: #CommActUpdate
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/CommActUpdate?f=realtime&src=hash>* |
*#Gtownpolicy* <https://twitter.com/hashtag/Gtownpolicy?f=realtime&src=hash>


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7572#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7572#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7572

---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast

 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7572>http://isoc-ny.org
---------------------------------------------------------------




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150224/a878a7f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Feb 24 09:21:31 2015
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:21:31 -0300
Subject: [governance] Your views: Public consultation on NETmundial
 initiative ToR - deadline 27/02
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2Q29X+b1R_oe_BoRW0jhypkQiBwxRDyS2V5eNBqvhmuw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello all,



I would like to invite you to participate in the public consultations that
aims to gather the views from all stakeholders about the shaping and the
future of the NETmundial Initiative. The multistakeholder Inaugural
Coordination Council (in which I serve as one of the members, together with
others on this list) will develop the Terms of Reference for the NMI based
on these contributions, inspired by bottom-up consultation process of
NETmundial. Your inputs really count!


<https://www.netmundial.org/community-consultation-terms-reference>



The deadline is Friday, *February 27* and it will take about 5-10 minutes.
The official call follows below.



Thanks so much in advance for your time.



Best wishes!

Marília





As announced in late December 2014, the NETmundial Initiative's first order
of business in 2015 is to develop its Terms of Reference through an
inclusive, bottom-up, and consultative process, open to the global
community <
https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and
<https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and%3E>>


Important headway has been made in getting the process under way.



On 12 January 2015, the Initiative’s Secretariat issued a call to the
23-member Inaugural Coordination Council, asking for volunteers to form a
subgroup that would coordinate all activities related to this effort. The
call was answered with strong interest, with the number of subgroup members
now at 18. Of these, 11 are Council members, with the remaining 7
participating in their capacity as representatives of Council members. All
sectors are represented. There are no size restrictions or time limits for
joining the subgroup, offering all involved an opportunity to contribute.

Following three virtual meetings and mailing list discussions on both
process and substantive matters, the subgroup issued a call for public
comments  to help inform a first draft of the Terms of Reference. The
deadline for comments is 27 February 2015 at 23:59 UTC. The announcement
and questionnaire can be found here <
https://www.netmundial.org/community-consultation-terms-reference>, while
all comments received to date are publicly available here <
https://www.netmundial.org/tor-feedback
<https://www.netmundial.org/tor-feedback%3E>>



We encourage you to participate, as well as share the opportunity for
comment with your respective communities and contacts so that they can also
make their views known. It takes about 5 minutes the complete the
questionnaire.

The first draft document will be made available for public comment and
further discussion, using the same open and transparent interface as the
one used to collect community input during the NETmundial São Paulo
meeting. The Council will discuss the document at its first face-to-face
gathering on 31 March 2015, which will take place in San José, Costa Rica.



The next few weeks will be crucial in ensuring that the Initiative’s way
forward is informed and shaped by the community. In this context, I’d like
to once again underline the importance of community participation in the
development of the Terms of Reference and appreciate your help and support
in sharing the call for comments with all those who might be interested in
participating <
https://www.netmundial.org/community-consultation-terms-reference>.





-- 
*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/20150224/8ad81403/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 24 09:49:52 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:49:52 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Rewriting the Communications Act:
 An Introductory Event
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk3U45CJWAZ_Z7jJXRRHNeJuo20etN=dKiPz8joZ6X8OBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk3U45CJWAZ_Z7jJXRRHNeJuo20etN=dKiPz8joZ6X8OBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1mbyCv_u2ZJA7qZiO0Zep-sdYs3qhgLxTKf578kTpaXg@mail.gmail.com>

​​

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

> For those more interested in International Governance there is a
> simultaneous event over at ITIF- The Importance of Cross-Border Data
> Flows for Traditional Industries
> <http://www.itif.org/events/importance-cross-border-data-flows-traditional-industries> also
> at 9am EST.
>

​ITIF's site is down, The webcast is at
http://www.dacast.com/viewer/videos/itif/

​



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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/20150224/d2545492/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 24 10:17:59 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:17:59 -0800
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
Message-ID: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>

OK, " <https://twitter.com/hashtag/InternetFreedom?src=hash> Internet
Freedom"/FOE folks what do you think of this one? 

 

More privatization of the law? 

 

Good idea/bad idea?

 

http://techaeris.com/2015/02/24/google-warns-users-will-censor-blogger-porn/

 

M

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150224/171ddfc7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 24 11:37:13 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:07:13 +0530
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
In-Reply-To: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
References: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55217C3B-C907-40B8-AD08-F8002AC8E0E7@hserus.net>

Given that they are the ones stuck with policing all the nude content and separating the drunk nude selfie bloggers from the upskirt voyeurs / revenge porn site operators / child abuse perpetrators from the scholarly discussants of the precise way to achieve the flexibility necessary to perform sex acts described in the kamasutra ... 

I can understand their blanket ban, though I don't necessarily condone it.

--srs (iPad)

> On 24-Feb-2015, at 20:47, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> OK, “Internet Freedom”/FOE folks what do you think of this one?
>  
> More privatization of the law?
>  
> Good idea/bad idea?
>  
> http://techaeris.com/2015/02/24/google-warns-users-will-censor-blogger-porn/
>  
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150224/27da06b0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Feb 24 11:47:31 2015
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:47:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
In-Reply-To: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
References: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgCGaa=w5FPpFBkZ+T4ftWTyQhTpWxg89K+oQWcW-tXoQ@mail.gmail.com>

*https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/6170671?p=policy_update&rd=1
<https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/6170671?p=policy_update&rd=1>Note:*
We’ll still allow nudity if the content offers a substantial public
benefit, for example in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific
contexts.



On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

> OK, “Internet Freedom
> <https://twitter.com/hashtag/InternetFreedom?src=hash>”/FOE folks what do
> you think of this one?
>
>
>
> More privatization of the law?
>
>
>
> Good idea/bad idea?
>
>
>
>
> http://techaeris.com/2015/02/24/google-warns-users-will-censor-blogger-porn/
>
>
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150224/26746ae7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bzs at world.std.com  Tue Feb 24 21:35:59 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:35:59 -0500
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
In-Reply-To: <55217C3B-C907-40B8-AD08-F8002AC8E0E7@hserus.net>
References: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
	<55217C3B-C907-40B8-AD08-F8002AC8E0E7@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <21741.13583.316636.321410@world.std.com>


From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>Given that they are the ones stuck with policing all the nude content and s=
>eparating the drunk nude selfie bloggers from the upskirt voyeurs / revenge=
> porn site operators / child abuse perpetrators from the scholarly discussa=
>nts of the precise way to achieve the flexibility necessary to perform sex =
>acts described in the kamasutra ...=20
>
>I can understand their blanket ban, though I don't necessarily condone it.

Whatever happened to the theory that if you act as the censor then you
can be held responsible for the content (e.g., failure to perform
liability when some kid gets porn this way anyhow)?

Did that have no legal basis? Is there any case trail?

-- 
        -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 suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 24 21:50:46 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:20:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
In-Reply-To: <21741.13583.316636.321410@world.std.com>
References: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
 <55217C3B-C907-40B8-AD08-F8002AC8E0E7@hserus.net>
 <21741.13583.316636.321410@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <14bbea4bbd0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Not here. They don't censor specific content and only limit categories of 
content. It still doesn't stop people from uploading it but they do have a 
policy basis for taking down any objectionable content going forward. I 
guess this removes the subjectivity and need for editorial control as to 
whether a nude picture was solicited or taken by a voyeur with a long lens 
through an open bedroom window.



On February 25, 2015 8:07:42 AM Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:

>
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> >Given that they are the ones stuck with policing all the nude content and s=
> >eparating the drunk nude selfie bloggers from the upskirt voyeurs / revenge=
> > porn site operators / child abuse perpetrators from the scholarly discussa=
> >nts of the precise way to achieve the flexibility necessary to perform sex =
> >acts described in the kamasutra ...=20
> >
> >I can understand their blanket ban, though I don't necessarily condone it.
>
> Whatever happened to the theory that if you act as the censor then you
> can be held responsible for the content (e.g., failure to perform
> liability when some kid gets porn this way anyhow)?
>
> Did that have no legal basis? Is there any case trail?
>
> --
>         -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 dave at difference.com.au  Wed Feb 25 00:40:03 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:40:03 +0800
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
In-Reply-To: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
References: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51876AF8-EEC1-4566-B62E-5D240E9AA305@difference.com.au>


On 24 Feb 2015, at 11:17 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, “Internet Freedom”/FOE folks what do you think of this one?

	It is an issue largely because of Googles near monopoly on search. It would be interesting to know if Google Blogger content is indexable by other search engines?

	It isn’t a direct censorship issue - despite the misleading wording of the google warning ("can only be seen by the owner or admins of the blog and the people who the owner has shared the blog with.” - but I’m fairly sure this means ‘can only be found if you share the URL directly’, rather than ‘the admin needs to directly authorise it’, which are *very* different cases. If it does mean the former, then I would expect a mass migration away.) And, of course, free speech has never meant that others must allow you to use their publishing platform say whatever you want, especially for free. Google is such a large player in search that such decisions need to be looked at carefully though.

> More privatization of the law?

	Those that choose to build on property owned by another have always given up some control in the process (note Google are only talking about search results for content on the blogger platform, which is owned by google). It is like a property manager making conditions of their tenants - the situation was privatised from the start.

> Good idea/bad idea?\

	It is a puzzling decision, because Google clearly has the ability to simply block blogs with nudity from those with the (opt-out) Safe Search option set. I presume Google have good reasons. Google ia large content company, that experiences a lot of pressure from a wide variety of legal and political directions. Though they provide many services for free, they are under no compulsion to continue providing free services that they find problematic as a company. I presume Google, as owner of both search and blog platform vendor here, is keen enough to be seen not to be receiving income from pornographic content that they are willing to forgo the (incidental) AdSense income.

	I appreciate that Google added the options to permit searchable nudity for various non-sexual purposes. That opens a bucket of worms (for example, does it work on a blog by blog or post by post basis, because many people mix content types on their blogs, or what about art that is both of artistic merit and sexually explicit?), but I assume Google is prepared for that.

	In other words - this is worth watching, because Google is large enough that their policy positions matter. Next time I speak to any Google public policy people, I may bring this up. But it doesn’t represent a significant change in the balance of free expression on the internet  -  platform owners have always been able to have some control over the content available on their platform, and this does not actually remove content only change its visibility, and there are migration options.

	Cheers

		David



> 
> http://techaeris.com/2015/02/24/google-warns-users-will-censor-blogger-porn/
> 
> 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/20150225/7e7d89ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150225/7e7d89ea/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb 25 01:13:44 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:43:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
In-Reply-To: <21741.13583.316636.321410@world.std.com>
References: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>	<55217C3B-C907-40B8-AD08-F8002AC8E0E7@hserus.net> <21741.13583.316636.321410@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <54ED6818.4000308@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 25 February 2015 08:05 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> snip
> Whatever happened to the theory that if you act as the censor then you
> can be held responsible for the content (e.g., failure to perform
> liability when some kid gets porn this way anyhow)?

Yes, this is a very important point. There is obviously a big paradox in 
these Internet majors both claiming no intermediary liability and also 
the right to control the content on their platforms. Logically, it can 
either be one or the other.

What such paradoxes of this new situation - where private players fully 
own and control monopoly spaces underpinning key sectors of social 
activity - point to is something much larger. Something which public 
interest groups have not given adequate attention - as evident from some 
bland responses to the earlier thread on 'monetising socialisation' 
referring to a very problematic - ad hoc , not transparent and non 
(publicly) accountable - practice of Facebook. This present issue about 
Google's sudden decision is of a similar kind (although, I I must admit, 
perhaps both the monopoly element and lock-in element is relatively 
lesser in case of google's 'blogger platform' that its search platform 
and Facebook's social networking platforms).

What we need is a much more serious discussion on how to meet public 
interest requirements in these new conditions of an Internet mediated 
society, where its key social activity spaces are digitally mediated by 
monopoly platforms owned by corporate giants, who act as per their will. 
( I am surprised that a few people here do not consider this as one of 
the most important IG issues, but well to each one's own.) . Putting the 
proverbial ostrich's head in the sand, which has been the mainstream 
civil society response, or to hope that talks with MNCs or civil society 
ratings will make the problem go away, is obviously not fine. But we 
seem to be doing little else, as the techno-social architecture of a new 
social system seem to be getting concretised around us, and soon it may 
be too late.

At a very high level, one can say that  such key monopoly social 
platforms should

(1) either be directly owned by the public (which is not what most of us 
want in most of the cases, although in some areas, like shown by the 
movement for community owned broadband network, such public/ community 
ownership needs to be explored and this option cannot just be dismissed 
out of hand).

(2) or they are subject to strong public interest regulation, based on 
clearly laid of norms, public policy principles and regulatory rules and 
structures.

This obviously leads us to the question of how to devise such norms, 
principles and regulatory structures for what is in larger part a 
'global Internet'. There is no escape from this question, although most 
of us have spent more than a decade now trying to escape this question 
(or coming up with limp, if not uprightly problematic responses, like 
the Net Mundial Initiative). It is time we devote ourselves to this 
question. We need an adequately federated response to this key issue of 
global governance of the Internet: while the final political and 
regulatory authority can only be anchored at the national level, we need 
global norms, principles, and structures for building common policy 
responses, model laws and regulatory systems, and means of their regular 
coordination. (And God forbid if these are made at the World Social 
Forum!) I dont see any other way for us to go - unless of course we go 
towards fully national Internets.

parminder


>
> Did that have no legal basis? Is there any case trail?
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150225/95b18c0e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 25 01:19:57 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:49:57 +0530
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
In-Reply-To: <54ED6818.4000308@itforchange.net>
References: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>	<55217C3B-C907-40B8-AD08-F8002AC8E0E7@hserus.net> <21741.13583.316636.321410@world.std.com> <54ED6818.4000308@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54ED698D.9070309@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 25 February 2015 11:43 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 25 February 2015 08:05 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
>> snip
>> Whatever happened to the theory that if you act as the censor then you
>> can be held responsible for the content (e.g., failure to perform
>> liability when some kid gets porn this way anyhow)?
>
> Yes, this is a very important point. There is obviously a big paradox 
> in these Internet majors both claiming no intermediary liability and 
> also the right to control the content on their platforms. Logically, 
> it can either be one or the other.
>
> What such paradoxes of this new situation - where private players 
> fully own and control monopoly spaces underpinning key sectors of 
> social activity - point to is something much larger. Something which 
> public interest groups have not given adequate attention - as evident 
> from some bland responses to the earlier thread on 'monetising 
> socialisation' referring to a very problematic - ad hoc , not 
> transparent and non (publicly) accountable - practice of Facebook. 
> This present issue about Google's sudden decision is of a similar kind 
> (although, I I must admit, perhaps both the monopoly element and 
> lock-in element is relatively lesser in case of google's 'blogger 
> platform' that its search platform and Facebook's social networking 
> platforms).
>
> What we need is a much more serious discussion on how to meet public 
> interest requirements in these new conditions of an Internet mediated 
> society, where its key social activity spaces are digitally mediated 
> by monopoly platforms owned by corporate giants, who act as per their 
> will. ( I am surprised that a few people here do not consider this as 
> one of the most important IG issues, but well to each one's own.) . 
> Putting the proverbial ostrich's head in the sand, which has been the 
> mainstream civil society response, or to hope that talks with MNCs or 
> civil society ratings will make the problem go away, is obviously not 
> fine. But we seem to be doing little else, as the techno-social 
> architecture of a new social system seem to be getting concretised 
> around us, and soon it may be too late.
>
> At a very high level, one can say that  such key monopoly social 
> platforms should
>
> (1) either be directly owned by the public (which is not what most of 
> us want in most of the cases, although in some areas, like shown by 
> the movement for community owned broadband network, such public/ 
> community ownership needs to be explored and this option cannot just 
> be dismissed out of hand).
>
> (2) or they are subject to strong public interest regulation, based on 
> clearly laid of norms, public policy principles and regulatory rules 
> and structures.
>
> This obviously leads us to the question of how to devise such norms, 
> principles and regulatory structures for what is in larger part a 
> 'global Internet'. There is no escape from this question, although 
> most of us have spent more than a decade now trying to escape this 
> question (or coming up with limp, if not uprightly problematic 
> responses, like the Net Mundial Initiative). It is time we devote 
> ourselves to this question. We need an adequately federated response 
> to this key issue of global governance of the Internet: while the 
> final political and regulatory authority can only be anchored at the 
> national level, we need global norms, principles, and structures for 
> building common policy responses, model laws and regulatory systems, 
> and means of their regular coordination. (And God forbid if these are 
> made at the World Social Forum!) 

Well of course, I have been typing 'world social forum' too often these 
days :)..... I surely meant , god forbid if these are made at the world 
economic forum!

> I dont see any other way for us to go - unless of course we go towards 
> fully national Internets.
>
> parminder
>
>
>> Did that have no legal basis? Is there any case trail?
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> 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/20150225/22c5c785/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 25 05:02:43 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:02:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] CFP: 5th International Symposium on Cloud Computing,
 Trusted Computing and,Secure Virtual Infrastructures (C&TC 2015)
Message-ID: <00ac01d050e2$329fd170$97df7450$@unimi.it>

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message]

 

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

CALL FOR PAPERS

5th International Symposium on Cloud Computing, Trusted Computing and Secure
Virtual Infrastructures -- Cloud and Trusted Computing (C&TC 2015) October
26-28, 2015 -- Rhodes, Greece

 <http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/cloud-trust-15>
http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/cloud-trust-15

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

 

===========

Description

===========

 

Current and future software needs to remain focused towards the development
and deployment of large and complex intelligent and networked information
systems, required for internet-based and intranet-based systems in
organizations. Today software covers a very wide range of application
domains as well as technology and research issues. This has found
realization through Cloud Computing. Vital element in such networked
information systems are the notions of trust, security, privacy and risk
management.

 

Cloud and Trusted Computing (C&TC 2015) is the 5th International Symposium
on Cloud Computing, Trusted Computing and Secure Virtual Infrastructures,
organized as a component conference of the OnTheMove Federated Conferences &
Workshops. C&TC 2015 will be held in Rhodes, Greece.

 

The conference solicits submissions from both academia and industry
presenting novel research in the context of Cloud Computing, presenting
theoretical and practical approaches to cloud trust, security, privacy and
risk management. The conference will provide a special focus on the
intersection between cloud and trust bringing together experts from the two
communities to discuss on the vital issues of trust, security, privacy and
risk management in Cloud Computing. Potential contributions could cover new
approaches, methodologies, protocols, tools, or verification and validation
techniques. We also welcome review papers that analyze critically the
current status of trust, security, privacy and risk management in the cloud.
Papers from practitioners who encounter trust, security, privacy and risk
management problems and seek understanding are also welcome.

 

Topics of interests of C&TC 2015 include, but are not limited to:

 

TRUST, SECURITY, PRIVACY AND RISK MANAGEMENT IN CLOUD COMPUTING

- Assurance Techniques

- Access Control, Authorization, and Authentication

- Cloud Computing with Autonomic and Trusted Environment

- Cryptographic Algorithms and Protocols

- Cyber Attack, Crime and Cyber War

- DRM, Watermarking Technology, IP Protection

- Emergency and Security Systems

- End-to-end security over complex cloud supply chain

- Forensics

- Human Interaction with Trusted and Autonomic Computing Systems

- Identity and Trust Management

- Multimedia Security Issues over Mobile and Wireless Clouds

- Network Security

- Networks of Trust, Clouds of Trust

- Privacy, Anonymity

- Privilege Management Infrastructure

- Reliable Computing and Trusted Computing

- Risk evaluation and Management

- Security, Dependability and Autonomic Issues in Ubiquitous Computing

- Security Models and Quantifications

- Self-protection and Intrusion-detection in Security

- Trust Evaluation and Prediction in Service-Oriented Environments

- Trust, Security, Privacy and Confidentiality

- Trusted Computing in virtualized environments

- Trusted P2P, Web Service, SoA, SaaS, EaaS, PaaS, XaaS

- Virus Detections and Anti-virus Techniques/Software

 

CLOUD DATA MANAGEMENT

- Algorithms and Computations on Encrypted Data

- Big Data, Frameworks and Systems for Parallel and Distributed Computing

- Database as a Service, Multi-tenancy, Data management and analytics as a
service

- Data Science and Scalable Machine Learning

- Elasticity and Scalability for Cloud Data Management Systems

- High Availability and Reliability

- Interoperability between Clouds

- New Protocols, Interfaces and Data Models for Cloud Databases

- Resource and Workload Management in Cloud Databases

- Service Level Agreements and Contracts

- Transactional Models for Cloud Databases, Consistency and Replication

- Virtualization and Cloud databases, Storage Structures and Indexing

 

CLOUD COMPUTING INFRASTRUCTURES AND ARCHITECTURES

- Autonomic Computing Theory, Models, Architectures and Communications

- Cloud Resource provisioning with QoS Guarantees

- Cloud Operation and Resource Management

- Cloud Performance Modeling and Benchmarks

- Datacenter Architecture and Management

- Formal methods and Tools for Cloud computing

- Infrastructures for Social Computing and Networking

- Software Architectures and Design for Trusted Emerging Systems

- Virtualized Computing Infrastructures

 

CLOUD COMPUTING APPLICATIONS

- Cloud Business Applications and Case Studies

- Clouds and Social Media, Network and Link Analysis

- Large Scale Cloud Applications, Reality Mining

- Mobile Cloud Services

- New Parallel / Concurrent Programming Models for Cloud Computing

- Pervasive / Ubiquitous Computing in the Cloud

- Reliability, Fault Tolerance, Quality-of-Service

- Service Level Agreements and Performance Measurement

- Service-Oriented Architectures, RESTful Services in Cloud Environments

 

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

Important Dates

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

 

- Abstract Submission Deadline: June 23, 2015

- Paper Submission Deadline: June 30, 2015

- Acceptance Notification: August 7, 2015

- Camera Ready Due: September 1, 2015

- Author Registration Due: September 1, 2015

 

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

Paper Submission

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

 

FULL PAPERS

Full paper submissions to Cloud and Trusted Computing 2015 (C&TC 2015) must
present original, highly innovative, prospective and forward-looking
research in one or more of the themes given above. Full papers must break
new ground, present new insight, deliver a significant research contribution
and provide validated support for its results and conclusions. Successful
submissions typically represent a major advance for the field of cloud
computing, referencing and relating the contribution to existing research
work, giving a comprehensive, detailed and understandable explanation of a
system, study, theory or methodology, and support the findings with a
compelling evaluation and/or validation. Each paper must be submitted as a
single PDF file in Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science format (not
longer than 18 pages in length). Accepted regular papers will be included in
the printed conference main proceedings and presented in the paper sessions.


Submissions to C&TC 2015 must not be under review by any other conference or
publication at any time during the C&TC review cycle, and must not be
previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere.

 

NOTES

Notes (not longer than 6 pages in length) must report new results and
provide support for the results, as a novel and valuable contribution to the
field - just like full papers. Notes are intended for succinct work that is
nonetheless in a mature state ready for inclusion in archival proceedings.
Notes will be held to the same standard of scientific quality as full
papers, albeit for a shorter presentation, and must still state how they fit
with respect to related work, and provide a compelling explanation and
validation. Notes must be submitted as single PDF file in Springer Lecture
Notes in Computer Science format. Accepted notes will be published in the
conference main proceedings and will be presented in the paper sessions of
the conference.

 

A selection of the best papers from Cloud and Trusted Computing 2015 will be
published in a special issue of The International Journal of Computer
Systems Science and Engineering.

 

Submissions are to be made to the submission web site available at
<http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/submitpaper>
http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/submitpaper

 

PAPER FORMATTING AND PRESENTING

The paper and notes submission site giving all the relevant submission
details is located at: 

 <http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/authors-kit/camconfpapers>
http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/authors-kit/camconfpapers.
Failure to comply with the formatting instructions for submitted papers or
notes will lead to the outright rejection of the paper without review.
Failure to commit to presentation at the conference automatically excludes a
paper from the proceedings.

 

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

Program Chairs

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

 

- Claudio Agostino Ardagna, Universita' degli studi di Milano, Italy

- Meiko Jensen, Independent Centre for Privacy Protection
Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

 

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

Advisory Committee

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

 

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

- Salim Hariri, The University of Arizona, USA

- Robert Meersman, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

- Siani Pearson, HP Labs, UK

 

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

Program Committee

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

 

TO BE ANNOUNCED SOON

 

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

Publicity Chair

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

 

- Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

 

More information available at

 <http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/cloud-trust-15>
http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/cloud-trust-15

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150225/df1d7a39/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed Feb 25 06:06:53 2015
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:06:53 +0000
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
In-Reply-To: <21741.13583.316636.321410@world.std.com>
References: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
 <55217C3B-C907-40B8-AD08-F8002AC8E0E7@hserus.net>
 <21741.13583.316636.321410@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <RVZWod6Nza7UFABU@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <21741.13583.316636.321410 at world.std.com>, at 21:35:59 on 
Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> writes
>Whatever happened to the theory that if you act as the censor then you
>can be held responsible for the content (e.g., failure to perform
>liability when some kid gets porn this way anyhow)?

It's going to be something that's location-specific.

>Did that have no legal basis? Is there any case trail?

in the USA: Stratton-Oakmont & Porush v. Prodigy, 1995.

Fortunately, Congress overturned Stratton Oakmont nine months later by 
enacting Section 509 of the Communications Decency Act, codified as 47 
U.S.C. [ss] 230 ("Section 230"). Section 230 grants online providers a 
near-blanket immunity from liability for their users' content. This 
immunity applies whether or not the online provider tries to control 
content it deems objectionable...

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=405720&seqNum=3

However, as the English idiom says: "mud sticks"; and the meme that 
acting as a censor imperils a service provider just won't go away.
-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Feb 25 07:27:08 2015
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 07:27:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
In-Reply-To: <51876AF8-EEC1-4566-B62E-5D240E9AA305@difference.com.au>
References: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com> <51876AF8-EEC1-4566-B62E-5D240E9AA305@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxg7gRe4cSyQmnAfyqjLnFJhVe5mxrYdRw-ys-K42vyHWA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:40 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

>
> On 24 Feb 2015, at 11:17 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, “Internet Freedom
> <https://twitter.com/hashtag/InternetFreedom?src=hash>”/FOE folks what do
> you think of this one?
>
>  It is an issue largely because of Googles near monopoly on search. It
> would be interesting to know if Google Blogger content is indexable by
> other search engines?
>



It does seems to be:

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrBT.Tovu1UwuMAzapXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3lmcC10LTMyOARncHJpZANMSEhrZ1BfQlNjMlhNQWtFRGVhZVVBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMxMARvcmlnaW4Dc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MDMARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAwRxc3RybAMyMwRxdWVyeQNnb29nbGUgYmxvZ2dlciBleGFtcGxlcwR0X3N0bXADMTQyNDg2NzExMA--?p=google+blogger+examples&fr2=sb-top-search&fr=yfp-t-328&fp=1



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150225/9b95acbf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 25 08:50:44 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:50:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
In-Reply-To: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
References: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150225145044.09509ea1@quill>

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:17:59 -0800
"Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good idea/bad idea?
> 
> http://techaeris.com/2015/02/24/google-warns-users-will-censor-blogger-porn/

I have just commented on this at
http://sustainability.oriented.systems/aup-no-critical-content/


Independently of the substantive questions in relation to issues of
online nudity (which in my view are not nearly as easy or clear-cut as
many people seem to think), it is in my eyes very wrong of Google to
break incoming links on a whim like they’re doing here.

Still more upsetting however are AUP practices of some other companies.

Here’s an email which I just sent to CtrlS Datacenters Ltd, which
boasts having “Asia’s largest Tier 4 datacenter”, in relation to their
AUP http://www.ctrls.in/aup.php :

--quoted email text starts--
Hi,

your AUP (which abbreviation by the way properly means "acceptable use
policy", your current AUP gets that wrong in two different ways)
contains very unacceptable provisions.

The most serious problem is that you seem to want your customers to
agree that on their hosted websites nothing would be included that says
anything critical about anyone or about anything, as your definition
of "Defamatory content" includes "any website content that ... may give
an individual, business, product, services, group, government or nation
a negative image."

Please read up on the actual meaning of "defamation", and think hard and
carefully about what it means for democratic discourse when factually
justifiable criticism is forbidden by AUPs.

In view of your AUP provisions, I currently cannot recommend your
services to the organization which has asked me to advise them in the
choice of a hosting service provider.

Best regards
Norbert Bollow
--quoted email text ends--

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Feb 25 09:27:36 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:27:36 -0600
Subject: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
In-Reply-To: <20150225145044.09509ea1@quill>
References: <002e01d05045$138197d0$3a84c770$@gmail.com>
 <20150225145044.09509ea1@quill>
Message-ID: <20150225142736.GA29319@hserus.net>

Norbert Bollow [25/02/15 14:50 +0100]:
>The most serious problem is that you seem to want your customers to
>agree that on their hosted websites nothing would be included that says
>anything critical about anyone or about anything, as your definition
>of "Defamatory content" includes "any website content that ... may give
>an individual, business, product, services, group, government or nation
>a negative image."

They are based in India and so would have to comply with section 66A of the
IT act, where this is quite loosely defined.

You might read this paper I put together with Pranesh Prakash of CIS India.
Section IV (written by Pranesh) has an overview of 66A and its
implications.  

There is very little notion of safe harbor, and defamatory content is in
practice defined as "anything that anyone finds defamatory enough to sue"

http://cybersummit.info/sites/cybersummit.info/files/srs-ewi-paper-final.pdf

So you may want to work with your friends it4change to lobby the Indian
government to remedy this act. 

There's an ongoing challenge to 66A in the indian supreme court, you may
want to track this.  The funny thing is, the government is declaring in the
supreme court that 66A is meant to deter spam and phishing and cybercrime
rather than curb free speech (while most if not all the prosecutions under
this have been against people posting political criticism)

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/XMv1cw3VLrmJZrpLYhIqPL/Section-66A-not-for-curbing-freedom-of-speech-govt-says.html

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/sc-on-it-act-will-examine-section-66a-as-it-stands/

It deals entirely with the transmission of messages (so email and by
extension social media) and on the surface at least has no wording that
deters spam and phishing, let alone other cybercrime like ddos attacks or
malware.  Also note the "or" at the end of each clause, and the punishment
that 66A prescribes.

------

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication
service, etc.

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication
device,—

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of
causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury,
criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making
use of such computer resource or a communication device,

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of
causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the
addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and with fine.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, terms “electronic mail” and
“electronic mail message” means a message or information created or
transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource
or communication device including attachments in text, images, audio, video
and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.


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

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Feb 25 09:58:26 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:58:26 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Senate hearing on IANA transition
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3vZb3VCkRx55MReTF1u1tDWYv9DiHkABEZEVmXgrdx1w@mail.gmail.com>

 *JUST ABOUT TO BEGIN*

[image: US Senate]
<http://i1.wp.com/isoc-ny.org/p2/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/US-Senate.gif>
Today *Wednesday February 25 2015* the *U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation* <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/> will convene
a hearing – *Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance
<http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a>*
–
in Washington DC. As the U.S. government considers relinquishing control
over certain aspects of Internet governance to the private sector, concerns
remain that the loss of U.S. involvement over the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) could empower foreign powers – acting through
intergovernmental institutions or other surrogates – to gain increased
control over critical Internet functions. Featuring testimony from the U.S.
government official assessing the threat to the Internet and the CEO of
ICANN, the hearing will examine the potential benefits and preparedness of
non-governmental actors to protect Internet governance functions from
attempted interference by foreign governments. Witnesses: *Fadi Chehadé*,
CEO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN);
Ambassador *David Gross*, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, and former U.S.
Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, U.S.
Department of State; and *Lawrence Strickling*, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information and Administrator, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department
of Commerce.

*What: Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance
<http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a>*
*Where: Washington DC*
*When: Wednesday February 25 2015 10am-11:30am EST | 15:00-16:30 UTC*
*Webcast: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive01
<http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive01>*

*Twitter: #iana + #senate
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23iana%20%2B%20senate&src=typd>
| #netgov
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/netgov?f=realtime&src=hash>*




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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/20150225/4582c70b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Feb 25 10:06:21 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:06:21 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Senate hearing on IANA transition
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk3vZb3VCkRx55MReTF1u1tDWYv9DiHkABEZEVmXgrdx1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk3vZb3VCkRx55MReTF1u1tDWYv9DiHkABEZEVmXgrdx1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2pF=2p1JTPSNaWewOtxpZv9ey+kzdU452hbxc9XC-VwA@mail.gmail.com>

Correction: the webcast is on
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2015


On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

>  *JUST ABOUT TO BEGIN*
>
> [image: US Senate]
> <http://i1.wp.com/isoc-ny.org/p2/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/US-Senate.gif>
> Today *Wednesday February 25 2015* the *U.S. Senate Committee on
> Commerce, Science, and Transportation* <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/> will
> convene a hearing – *Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet
> Governance
> <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a>* –
> in Washington DC. As the U.S. government considers relinquishing control
> over certain aspects of Internet governance to the private sector, concerns
> remain that the loss of U.S. involvement over the Internet Assigned Numbers
> Authority (IANA) could empower foreign powers – acting through
> intergovernmental institutions or other surrogates – to gain increased
> control over critical Internet functions. Featuring testimony from the U.S.
> government official assessing the threat to the Internet and the CEO of
> ICANN, the hearing will examine the potential benefits and preparedness of
> non-governmental actors to protect Internet governance functions from
> attempted interference by foreign governments. Witnesses: *Fadi Chehadé*,
> CEO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN);
> Ambassador *David Gross*, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, and former U.S.
> Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, U.S.
> Department of State; and *Lawrence Strickling*, Assistant Secretary for
> Communications and Information and Administrator, National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department
> of Commerce.
>
> *What: Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance
> <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a>*
> *Where: Washington DC*
> *When: Wednesday February 25 2015 10am-11:30am EST | 15:00-16:30 UTC*
> *Webcast: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive01
> <http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive01>*
>
> *Twitter: #iana + #senate
> <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23iana%20%2B%20senate&src=typd> | #netgov
> <https://twitter.com/hashtag/netgov?f=realtime&src=hash>*
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150225/c9ec1ee5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 25 17:23:51 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:23:51 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Important Followup on the Broadcasters Treaty --
 Fwd: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBxV_gfrrmHc3_9TvHqDs4nrZ3ojXQapYSmYtuLJY0W3kQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFBxV_gfrrmHc3_9TvHqDs4nrZ3ojXQapYSmYtuLJY0W3kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFByx637_AsU3TnxyFA3DHYHHBUS9Ys5WMg+DvcVhkk-1Jg@mail.gmail.com>

Important note, though somewhat dense, to Richard Johns of the US
Mission to the UN and Shira Perlmutter, head of the US delegation to
the SCCR -- regarding how copyright policy is being implemented in the
context of the Information Society.  Also important for understanding
how policy-making works in the international arena, try as we might to
get it on track.  :-)


Seth

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:43 PM
Subject: Important Followup on the Broadcasters Treaty -- Fwd:
Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
To: "Johns, Richard B (Geneva)" <JohnsRB at state.gov>, "Perlmutter,
Shira" <shira.perlmutter at uspto.gov>, "Schlegelmilch, Kristine
(Geneva)" <SchlegK at state.gov>, "Zoller, Julie N" <zollerjn at state.gov>
Cc: Manon Anne Ress <manon.ress at keionline.org>, Jamie Love
<james.love at keionline.org>, "Reves, Todd" <Todd.Reves at uspto.gov>,
"Shapiro, Michael" <Michael.Shapiro at uspto.gov>, "Gordon, Marian R"
<gordonmr at state.gov>, "Holiday, Cecily C" <holidaycc at state.gov>,
Doreen McGirr <mcgirrdf at state.gov>, Justin Hughes <hughes at yu.edu>


Hello Richard,

I am forwarding your note to me with the following reply to Shira
Perlmutter and others who were originally included in this query, now
adding Julie Zoller and other contacts at the State Department.  I am
also cc'ing Justin Hughes, who coordinated an informal Round Table
discussion on the broadcasters treaty at the US PTO some time back.

I apologize for the duration of time you will need to read this.  As I
state below, I have tried to be succinct.  I am drawing some very
important connections among several elements that are presently moving
into place at the same time.

Your comments are stated in general terms regarding the CSTD/ECOSOC
WSIS+10 and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) proceedings, and they are
not responsive to the concerns I raised with Shira, which have to do
specifically with the broadcasters treaty, and international
copyright-related policymaking as it affects the Internet in general,
particularly in relation to the WSIS+10 Review and the
intergovernmental framework for the Information Society being
deliberated at the United Nations this year.

Will we have the opportunity to engage on the topic of the
broadcasters treaty and retransmission consent, by an open and
participatory process, before the UN General Assembly's
intergovernmental negotiations addressing the status and future of the
Information Society project in the latter half of this year?

To my recollection, Shira's note to me of December 10 is the first
mention I have seen of the US using retransmission consent as a
regulatory "national implementing legislation" basis for the
broadcaster's treaty.  Has this specific notion, of applying
retransmission consent under the Communications Act to the Internet
and using that as the implementing legislation for the broadcaster's
treaty, been subject to any kind of appropriate public disclosure and
discussion?  I believe there would have been far more concern
expressed if this had been the case, and the connection had been
explicitly understood.

When we see the connection between retransmission consent, applied to
the Internet domestically, and the broadcaster's treaty, to be
established internationally, we see that this arrangement reflects a
separation between content creation and telecommunications that is
built into the Information Society project's foundations. This
separates copyright established by international processes from
aspects of domestic telecommunications policy that have assured that
online innovation would not be impaired by liability for copyright.

This is a very different relationship to copyright than we have long
had on the Internet, hooked to an international framework that may
more readily support the types of processes we have already long seen
pursuing the enactment of excessive modes of copyright policy in
numerous international fora.

As you know, under the DMCA in the United States, anybody can become a
peer on the network of networks, without liability for transmitting
packets that happen to make up copyrighted works, so long as they
comply with the DMCA's notice and takedown provisions.

The broadcasters treaty proposes to establish a limited right related
only to signals retransmission (Shira calls this a "single-right
approach" in her email below), and retransmission consent establishes
liability only for retransmitting broadcasts.  Each of these is hard
to address on its own, and indeed they are hard to fully understand
when they are taken in isolation.

However, we see the overall schema clearly when we examine the
framework being set up by the Information Society project, and the
approach the US is presently promoting in relation to the network.

Among the rationales we have regularly heard voiced in the policy
discussions surrounding the Information Society project is a stance
opposing regulation of content -- typically phrased to identify this
stance with an opposition to regulating the Internet.  However, the
Internet is already separated from content creation in the
foundational elements of the Information Society project.  The
Internet is a subcategory of telecom and explicitly separated from
content creation in the performance measures the project uses to
measure its progress, and in the industry categories that underly the
Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the international instrument
that is to serve as the basis for the conformance and interoperability
assessment regime being set up as a key function within the
Information Society.  These definitions are foundational, underlying
all aspects of the project.

This separation means that within the framework for the Information
Society, international processes for copyright policy are freed up to
be pursued independently of telecom and the Internet.

This framework is also consistent with the approach the US is taking
to domestic policy, set to be revealed by the FCC tomorrow morning --
which is to all accounts focused on interconnection policy,
particularly with edge providers such as Netflix, and not on
reestablishing under Title II the permissionless and flexible platform
for innovation that originally arose within a context enabling anybody
to become a peer in the network of networks and interoperate freely
among themselves based on an open physical layer -- and protection
from liability for copyright under the DMCA.

What this separation means in practical terms is that despite the
Information Society's frequent appeals to convergence as the dynamic
that drives our need to engage in international policy processes for
the Internet, it is not a dynamic that will apply to copyright.  At a
time when many have been struggling for years to get policymakers to
adapt copyright to the Internet, the broadcaster's treaty, when
considered in light of the Information Society project and the present
approach to the network being promoted by the United States, is
apparently about adapting the Internet to international copyright in
all of the outlandish forms it has taken on.

The United States' legal tradition has long been founded on a basic
understanding that post-Enlightenment, democratic society is an
expression of the power of published information.   Thomas Jefferson
described this perfectly in his famous letter to Isaac McPherson on
August 13, 1813, which applies just as much to copyright as it does to
the patent policy he discusses:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

The US telecommunications tradition understands that the airwaves are
free.  The US tradition understands that factual elements of
published, copyrighted works are free for the taking. There's a reason
why the US understood the need to empower independent providers and
end users to take part in the new online medium of the Internet with
the protections of the DMCA, and it has to do with how the US
tradition understands how shared information promotes the advancement
of humankind, by its very nature.

This is why Aereo thought its model made sense.  This is why Grokster
(and many others) thought that the long-honored Betamax ruling would
empower us to innovate online and create new decentralized,
collaborative and interconnected modes of using and sharing
information, that we would adapt copyright to the Internet and not the
other way around.  Instead of adapting copyright to the new capacities
brought by the Internet, instead of working to making Aereo possible,
and instead of correcting the corrosive force of new conceptions,
including new theories of secondary liability or of the supposed
necessity for ridiculous copyright terms, or the instituting of
anti-circumvention policies that allow others to assert a kind of
private right of prior restraint on our own devices, and many others
that have arisen in response to the profoundly dynamic platform the
Internet has brought to all of us -- and which actively dishonor the
greatest traditions of enlightened copyright policy -- we appear to be
recalibrating our tradition to render it subject to a new
international framework that empowers the very types of processes we
have already seen repeatedly attempting to exploit the unique nature
of the international policymaking arena to empower the enactment of
misguided conceptions of copyright.

Aside from that last bit on the US tradition, I have tried to draw
these concerns somewhat briefly to focus the commentary properly, and
have provided no clarifying citations.  I trust that I will be able to
clarify and support these points in follow-up.

I ask that you please address my concerns so that we can take up the
implications of the broadcaster's treaty prior to the fulfillment of
the WSIS+10 Review, in light of the Information Society framework, and
in light of the redefinition of the network and of how copyright
applies there as well as in the approach to the network that the US is
promoting both domestically and abroad.  The broadcaster's treaty
should be taken up fully and frankly, with all the pieces before us,
especially at this stage of international processes related to the
Internet.

These matters should be taken up preferably before ECOSOC's mid-year
meeting, at which it will hand off their final WSIS+10 Review outputs
for the UN General Assembly's intergovernmental negotiations in the
latter half of the year.

If you are willing to take up these concerns at the Internet
Governance Forum in September, that would imply that the
implementation of the broadcaster's treaty on the basis of
retransmission consent will not be a conclusion already built into the
framework for the Information Society prior to that point, and so that
would certainly be deeply appreciated.  However, if we address it "in
form," based on what the WSIS+10 Review supposedly represents in a
process of which the US is apparently in support, then the appropriate
period for the question in relation to the Information Society would
be prior to ECOSOC's final contributions from the WSIS+10 Review in
July.


Regards,


Seth Johnson

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Johns, Richard B (Geneva)" <JohnsRB at state.gov>
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:00 AM
Subject: RE: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
To: "seth.p.johnson at gmail.com" <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
Cc: "Schlegelmilch, Kristine (Geneva)" <SchlegK at state.gov>


Hi Mr. Johnson,

Kristine Schlegelmilch forwarded your email to me, as I am responsible
for the U.S. Mission’s participation at IGF and CSTD, and general
Internet governance engagement.  I wanted to provide a response to
your question about whether the U.S. Government will “be taking part
in these forums to provide the opportunity for broader
multistakeholder discussion of and engagement on the US's
activities…prior to the conclusion of the Information Society
project's 10-year review.”   The U.S. Government has been extremely
active in engaging in all of the meetings that you mentioned.  In
fact, at the most recent IGF meeting in Istanbul, we had approximately
40 U.S. Government participants engaged in the discussions, including
the State Department Undersecretary of Economic Affairs and two U.S.
Ambassadors.  We plan on being similarly engaged at the 2015 IGF in
Brazil.

We have also been active participants in the CSTD WSIS 10-year review.
The U.S. held the CSTD Chairmanship last year and holds a
Vice-Chairmanship this year.  The Intercessional was held in Geneva
two weeks ago, where the 200 page WSIS Review document was presented
and discussed.  Yesterday, we held a broad, multistakeholder meeting
to discuss our collective input into the WSIS Review report.  We
highly value and strongly encourage contributions to these processes
from the private sector, academia, individuals, and NGSOs and look
forward to continuing these discussions in the lead up to the
High-level WSIS meeting which will be held in New York next year.
While Kristine is our specialist in IPR issues, don’t hesitate to
contact me if you have any specific concerns that you would like to
raise or questions about our engagement related to the World Summit on
the Information Society, CSTD or IGF.

Best regards,

Richard


Richard Johns
Economic and Science Affairs
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
+41 (0)22 749 4647 Office
+41 (0)22 749 4883 Fax


-----Original Message-----
From: Seth Johnson [mailto:seth.p.johnson at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:56 AM
To: Perlmutter, Shira
Cc: Jamie Love; Manon Anne Ress; Schlegelmilch, Kristine (Geneva);
Reves, Todd; Shapiro, Michael
Subject: Re: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR

Thank you Shira, I will await further word.


Seth

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Perlmutter, Shira
<Shira.Perlmutter at uspto.gov> wrote:
> Thanks Seth.  Within the USG, the State Dept has the lead on this.  I'm copying Kristine, who can give you more information on this.  But please be assured that the positions we are taking at WIPO, including on the proposed broadcast treaty, are the product of extensive interagency discussion, including the State Dept.  And our single-right approach is intended to be consistent with existing US law, primarily through the retransmission consent provisions of the Communications Act.   In our view, it would not require any new form of government regulation.
>
> Best,
> Shira
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:33:47 PM
> To: Perlmutter, Shira
> Cc: James Love; Manon Ress
> Subject: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
>
> Dear Ms. Perlmutter:
>
> You are doubtless aware of the activities presently underway taking up
> numerous policy areas related to the Internet and developing of some
> form of "Internet Governance" in relation to the Information Society
> project, represented most prominently by the outcomes of the 2003 and
> 2005 Geneva and Tunis World Summits for the Information Society
> (WSIS).
>
> The US has generally promoted a multistakeholder approach and avoided
> a predominantly intergovernmental approach to Internet-related policy
> areas in these processes.
>
> The US has also generally asserted an opposition to expanding the
> ITU's scope to the Internet through proposals that would amount to
> regulating of content, rather than telecommunications as such.  We
> might see this distinction reflected in the Information Society
> project's performance measures, which are based on ISIC (International
> Standard Industrial Classification) categories which distinguish
> content-related industries from telecommunications.
>
> However, while the project's performance measures do not include
> content creation, policies that the US is pursuing related to
> copyright, including the broadcasters right, are intergovernmental
> policies related to content that can easily affect the nature of the
> Internet platform.
>
> The Information Society project will be completing a 10-year
> assessment of its progress in 2015, beginning with a review by the
> Commission on Science and Technology in Development in the first half
> of the year, followed by an intergovernmental process conducted by the
> President of the General Assembly to determine the project's status
> and how it will proceed after 2015.  This period of review of
> implementation and followup represents the last opportunity before the
> UN GA's intergovernmental negotiations to address how well the project
> is addressing the relationship between the project and the Internet.
> The Internet Governance Forum will also provide a forum for
> multistakeholder engagement in Internet-related policy.
>
> Will the US be taking part in these forums to provide the opportunity
> for broader multistakeholder discussion of and engagement on the US's
> activities on copyright and other related exclusive rights policies,
> prior to the conclusion of the Information Society project's 10-year
> review?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Seth Johnson
>



This email is UNCLASSIFIED.





SBU

This email is UNCLASSIFIED.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 25 21:12:45 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:12:45 -0800
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
Message-ID: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com>

Contrary to the position of so much of CS in IG, Mr. Obama appears to be set on developing a regulatory framework for the US that ensures that the Internet will operate in the public interest.

 

 <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html

 

M

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150225/1cfac54d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Wed Feb 25 22:14:38 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:14:38 +0800
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com>
References: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <859F3803-5176-4BFE-86E1-C26B1C2B0960@difference.com.au>

This certainly seems to be a positive decision, and I welcome it.
However, regulation like a public utility, and in the public interest, are not quite the same thing. A good fit for the current US situation (in which alternative forms of regulation were specifically struck down by the courts), but regulation like a public utility may not be the best public interest solution for all nations.

Only one sentence, Michael, and you manage to fit in both an unhelpful oversimplification of the issue, AND a pointless, inaccurate, and nasty swipe at your civil society colleagues. Efficient.

Cheers

David

On 26 Feb 2015, at 10:12 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Contrary to the position of so much of CS in IG, Mr. Obama appears to be set on developing a regulatory framework for the US that ensures that the Internet will operate in the public interest.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html
> 
> 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/20150226/8c1590a3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150226/8c1590a3/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 gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Feb 25 22:24:02 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:24:02 -0800
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <859F3803-5176-4BFE-86E1-C26B1C2B0960@difference.com.au>
References: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com> <859F3803-5176-4BFE-86E1-C26B1C2B0960@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <00a201d05173$aba105d0$02e31170$@gmail.com>

Thanks David and may I point out that in rather less than a sentence you
manage to be pointless, inaccurate, and (making a) nasty swipe at . (a)
civil society colleague. but I digress.

 

M

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: February 25, 2015 7:15 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest

 

This certainly seems to be a positive decision, and I welcome it. 

However, regulation like a public utility, and in the public interest, are
not quite the same thing. A good fit for the current US situation (in which
alternative forms of regulation were specifically struck down by the
courts), but regulation like a public utility may not be the best public
interest solution for all nations. 

 

Only one sentence, Michael, and you manage to fit in both an unhelpful
oversimplification of the issue, AND a pointless, inaccurate, and nasty
swipe at your civil society colleagues. Efficient. 

 

Cheers

 

David

 

On 26 Feb 2015, at 10:12 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:





Contrary to the position of so much of CS in IG, Mr. Obama appears to be set
on developing a regulatory framework for the US that ensures that the
Internet will operate in the public interest.

 

 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality
-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html>
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-
ahead-of-fcc-vote.html

 

M

 

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

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

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150225/6b72c701/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Wed Feb 25 22:25:07 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:25:07 +0800
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <00a201d05173$aba105d0$02e31170$@gmail.com>
References: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com> <859F3803-5176-4BFE-86E1-C26B1C2B0960@difference.com.au> <00a201d05173$aba105d0$02e31170$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D7D94CC6-2518-4B1D-8FAE-01FB6380C3B1@difference.com.au>

Replying offlist

On 26 Feb 2015, at 11:24 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks David and may I point out that in rather less than a sentence you manage to be pointless, inaccurate, and (making a) nasty swipe at … (a) civil society colleague… but I digress…
> 
> M
> 
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: February 25, 2015 7:15 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
> 
> This certainly seems to be a positive decision, and I welcome it.
> However, regulation like a public utility, and in the public interest, are not quite the same thing. A good fit for the current US situation (in which alternative forms of regulation were specifically struck down by the courts), but regulation like a public utility may not be the best public interest solution for all nations.
> 
> Only one sentence, Michael, and you manage to fit in both an unhelpful oversimplification of the issue, AND a pointless, inaccurate, and nasty swipe at your civil society colleagues. Efficient.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> David
> 
> On 26 Feb 2015, at 10:12 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Contrary to the position of so much of CS in IG, Mr. Obama appears to be set on developing a regulatory framework for the US that ensures that the Internet will operate in the public interest.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html
> 
> 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/20150226/29a5af4e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150226/29a5af4e/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Feb 25 23:08:04 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:38:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <00a201d05173$aba105d0$02e31170$@gmail.com>
References: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com>
 <859F3803-5176-4BFE-86E1-C26B1C2B0960@difference.com.au>
 <00a201d05173$aba105d0$02e31170$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <14bc411d530.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Civil society needs to be good at choosing it's friends and it's enemies. 
Unfortunately we seem to find both within civil society itself


On February 26, 2015 9:36:54 AM "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks David and may I point out that in rather less than a sentence you
> manage to be pointless, inaccurate, and (making a) nasty swipe at . (a)
> civil society colleague. but I digress.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: February 25, 2015 7:15 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
>
>
>
> This certainly seems to be a positive decision, and I welcome it.
>
> However, regulation like a public utility, and in the public interest, are
> not quite the same thing. A good fit for the current US situation (in which
> alternative forms of regulation were specifically struck down by the
> courts), but regulation like a public utility may not be the best public
> interest solution for all nations.
>
>
>
> Only one sentence, Michael, and you manage to fit in both an unhelpful
> oversimplification of the issue, AND a pointless, inaccurate, and nasty
> swipe at your civil society colleagues. Efficient.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 26 Feb 2015, at 10:12 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Contrary to the position of so much of CS in IG, Mr. Obama appears to be set
> on developing a regulatory framework for the US that ensures that the
> Internet will operate in the public interest.
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality
> -ahead-of-fcc-vote.html>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-
> ahead-of-fcc-vote.html
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email:  <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
> 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/20150226/44fd493e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu Feb 26 00:41:27 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:41:27 -0500
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com>
References: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwhUTnoNiZ0OvrEQZBEq-BWaFQEer8-8N9mLR65ZTkuNg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Michael: it's true that moving finally back to that side of our
telecom policy reopens an orientation that acknowledges (and is based
in) public aspects of policy, an orientation that has long been
assiduously barred from the policy discourse (before roughly the last
year and a half).  What isn't clear is whether he's just using it as a
source of authority that connects the domestic policy context to an
international context that overrides the way the law has been applied,
or whether he will covertly begin to apply it on its actual grounds to
do things right again (or whether, hopefully, this will happen somehow
by force of the new type of logic that's now implied and operative,
once we go to that side of the law).


Seth

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Contrary to the position of so much of CS in IG, Mr. Obama appears to be set
> on developing a regulatory framework for the US that ensures that the
> Internet will operate in the public interest.
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html
>
>
>
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 26 01:16:04 2015
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:16:04 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] unConference in Paris, Mar 5-6
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKjJwOoNhtg=DdoJEEiu33nPwr90cu2d_tBfAfS8b3o4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKjJwOoNhtg=DdoJEEiu33nPwr90cu2d_tBfAfS8b3o4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <458923656.310274.1424931364733.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi,
I believe the UnConference would helpful in the industry to develop the consumer products and services as guide lines set by the innovative minds inventors) and Civil Societies will form the Policies to protect the public interest.
I am also attending UNESCO CONNECTing Dots conference in Paris and would like to attend "unConference", if possible for me to extend the stay and if FIMM Organizers allowed it.

Thanking you and Best Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah 
P.S. I am writing you a separate email.

 
      From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
 To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
 Sent: Tuesday, 24 February 2015, 10:46
 Subject: [governance] unConference in Paris, Mar 5-6
   
Hi, I am participating in the uNESCO conference early March in Paris.AND, after that on Mar 5-6, I will co-host a different meeting or unConference.
It's not directly related to the Internet Governance (yet), butpotentially, related the future of the use of Internet and its governance.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7m9U7fihFoIRnhCT1NYenRpRG8/view?usp=sharing

"unConference on the Future of Industry, Mobility and Making"in the afternoon of Mar 5 and 6 - at the Fab Lab La Villette, in the Museum of Science and Industry, Paris.http://www.cite-sciences.fr/fr/accueil/

It is "by invitation only" and you are welcome to join - so if you could stay longer and come, please contact me.
best,
izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150226/aac9d4df/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 26 01:22:31 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:52:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <859F3803-5176-4BFE-86E1-C26B1C2B0960@difference.com.au>
References: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com> <859F3803-5176-4BFE-86E1-C26B1C2B0960@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <54EEBBA7.7070102@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 26 February 2015 08:44 AM, David Cake wrote:
> This certainly seems to be a positive decision, and I welcome it.
> However, regulation like a public utility, and in the public interest, 
> are not quite the same thing.

Yes, they are not the same thing. Public utility regulation is a subset 
of a larger universe of regulation in public interest. In fact all 
regulation is in public interest, but all regulation is not as intrusive 
to be called public utility regulation. For instance, even title 1 
regulation by FCC is regulating the Internet in public interest, but 
here as more or less a normal commercial activity. Putting the Internet 
under title 2, which the FCC decision is expected to do, makes it more 
like a public utility regulation, recognising the Internet's exceptional 
social importance.

Do note that the cited NY article does say that is that the FCC is 
"expected on Thursday to approve regulating Internet service like a 
public utility".

Further, this is a fact, as Seth also says, that such descriptions as 
'public interest regulation' for the Internet, or even the use of the 
word 'public good' (another word the article uses for the Internet) , 
was largely a no-no in dominant global IG discourse, till just a few 
months back, and a very larger number of people on this elist will 
vehemently oppose any use of these terms in relation to the Internet.

This when civil society is supposed to be on the vanguard of a more 
radical progressive discourse. Now, when the US government - that great 
defender of free markets, globally - brings in regulation based on these 
very progressive concepts , which such a large number of people in this 
group had either vehemently opposed or silently been unenthusiastic 
about, Michael has a right to point out what he see as a political 
irony. His is simply a political statement, and if this forum is not for 
making political statements and arguments, I do not know what it is. 
Political history is an important part of contemporary politics, and if 
it needs to be asserted, it must be.

BTW, in its points 2 and 3, the Delhi Declaration of the Just Net 
Coalition respectively uses the terms 'public utility' and 'public good' 
in relation to the Internet.

parminder

> A good fit for the current US situation (in which alternative forms of 
> regulation were specifically struck down by the courts), but 
> regulation like a public utility may not be the best public interest 
> solution for all nations.
>
> Only one sentence, Michael, and you manage to fit in both an unhelpful 
> oversimplification of the issue, AND a pointless, inaccurate, and 
> nasty swipe at your civil society colleagues. Efficient.
>
> Cheers
>
> David
>
> On 26 Feb 2015, at 10:12 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Contrary to the position of so much of CS in IG, Mr. Obama appears to 
>> be set on developing a regulatory framework for the US that ensures 
>> that the Internet will operate in the public interest.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html
>> M
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC'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/20150226/df6dc5b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 26 01:25:49 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:55:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <54EEBBA7.7070102@itforchange.net>
References: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com> <859F3803-5176-4BFE-86E1-C26B1C2B0960@difference.com.au> <54EEBBA7.7070102@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54EEBC6D.8020309@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 26 February 2015 11:52 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Thursday 26 February 2015 08:44 AM, David Cake wrote:
>> This certainly seems to be a positive decision, and I welcome it.
>> However, regulation like a public utility, and in the public 
>> interest, are not quite the same thing.
>
> Yes, they are not the same thing. Public utility regulation is a 
> subset of a larger universe of regulation in public interest. In fact 
> all regulation is in public interest, but all regulation is not as 
> intrusive to be called public utility regulation. For instance, even 
> title 1 regulation by FCC is regulating the Internet in public 
> interest, but here as more or less a normal commercial activity. 
> Putting the Internet under title 2, which the FCC decision is expected 
> to do, makes it more like a public utility regulation, recognising the 
> Internet's exceptional social importance.
>
> Do note that the cited NY article does say that is that the FCC is 
> "expected on Thursday to approve regulating Internet service like a 
> public utility".
>
> Further, this is a fact, as Seth also says, that such descriptions as 
> 'public interest regulation' 

I meant ' public utility regulation'

> for the Internet, or even the use of the word 'public good' (another 
> word the article uses for the Internet) , was largely a no-no in 
> dominant global IG discourse, till just a few months back, and a very 
> larger number of people on this elist will vehemently oppose any use 
> of these terms in relation to the Internet.
>
> This when civil society is supposed to be on the vanguard of a more 
> radical progressive discourse. Now, when the US government - that 
> great defender of free markets, globally - brings in regulation based 
> on these very progressive concepts , which such a large number of 
> people in this group had either vehemently opposed or silently been 
> unenthusiastic about, Michael has a right to point out what he see as 
> a political irony. His is simply a political statement, and if this 
> forum is not for making political statements and arguments, I do not 
> know what it is. Political history is an important part of 
> contemporary politics, and if it needs to be asserted, it must be.
>
> BTW, in its points 2 and 3, the Delhi Declaration of the Just Net 
> Coalition respectively uses the terms 'public utility' and 'public 
> good' in relation to the Internet.
>
> parminder
>
>> A good fit for the current US situation (in which alternative forms 
>> of regulation were specifically struck down by the courts), but 
>> regulation like a public utility may not be the best public interest 
>> solution for all nations.
>>
>> Only one sentence, Michael, and you manage to fit in both an 
>> unhelpful oversimplification of the issue, AND a pointless, 
>> inaccurate, and nasty swipe at your civil society colleagues. Efficient.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 26 Feb 2015, at 10:12 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Contrary to the position of so much of CS in IG, Mr. Obama appears 
>>> to be set on developing a regulatory framework for the US that 
>>> ensures that the Internet will operate in the public interest.
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html
>>> M
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> 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/20150226/109980c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Feb 26 04:32:47 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:32:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com>
References: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54EEE83F.7020204@apc.org>

Michael, many in CS have worked very hard for recognition that the
internet should be governed in the public interest. For many years.

Getting that text into the NETmundial statement took work, but we got it
there and that is why I think it is short-sighted to dismiss that text.

It is a very important baseline from which we should never retreat and
on which we can build.

http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/

"NETmundial identified a set of common principles and important values
that contribute for an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective,
legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework and recognized
that the Internet is a global resource which should be managed in the
public interest."

Anriette



On 26/02/2015 04:12, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Contrary to the position of so much of CS in IG, Mr. Obama appears to be set on developing a regulatory framework for the US that ensures that the Internet will operate in the public interest.
> 
>  
> 
>  <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html
> 
>  
> 
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 26 07:04:32 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:34:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <54EEE83F.7020204@apc.org>
References: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com> <54EEE83F.7020204@apc.org>
Message-ID: <54EF0BD0.1060503@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 26 February 2015 03:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Michael, many in CS have worked very hard for recognition that the
> internet should be governed in the public interest. For many years.
>
> Getting that text into the NETmundial statement took work, but we got it
> there and that is why I think it is short-sighted to dismiss that text.

Anriette, in my humble view this text about 'Internet being a global 
resource that has to be managed in public interest' got in there because 
people were haggling over terms like Internet as a pulbic good, or a 
commons (which were indeed the politically meaningful terms) , which was 
obviously resisted by the usual suspects, and moving the words like 
resource and public around, the involved people reached this somewhat 
meaningless phrase. I may be wrong, in which case I am open to be corrected.

In fact 'governing something in public interest' is a bit of oxymoron, 
because once a subject is recognised for public governance, as Internet 
was by WSIS, it is but obvious that it will be governed in public 
interest (what else ?).

Further, I am not aware of, as you say, the long struggles either of 
general civil society or APC for a recognition that the Internet should 
be governed in public interest - simply because it is kind of obvious . 
Yes, APC was at one time very active to push the Internet as public good 
agenda, although I have not heard of it in the last many years. We 
should not confuse 'public good' and 'governance in public interest' , 
not that I am saying that you are confusing the two - just clarifying.
>
> It is a very important baseline from which we should never retreat and
> on which we can build.
For the above reason, I do not think of it at all as an important 
baseline. Much much more progressive language is written in WSIS docs, 
starting with Geneva Declaration of Principles. especially rights based 
language, and issues like access to knowledge... These concrete 
principles was much more meaningful rather than just professing a vague 
'public interest'.

But of course just my view...

parminder

>
> http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/
>
> "NETmundial identified a set of common principles and important values
> that contribute for an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective,
> legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework and recognized
> that the Internet is a global resource which should be managed in the
> public interest."
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 26/02/2015 04:12, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> Contrary to the position of so much of CS in IG, Mr. Obama appears to be set on developing a regulatory framework for the US that ensures that the Internet will operate in the public interest.
>>
>>   
>>
>>   <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html
>>
>>   
>>
>> 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/20150226/591ef25f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 26 07:23:49 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:23:49 +0100
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <54EEBBA7.7070102@itforchange.net>
References: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com>
	<859F3803-5176-4BFE-86E1-C26B1C2B0960@difference.com.au>
	<54EEBBA7.7070102@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20150226132349.66b09b04@quill>

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:52:31 +0530
parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> In fact all regulation is in public interest

Apologies, but I feel like being slightly nitpicky right now.

While I agree that all regulation (like all other forms of governance
on national or global or any other public sphere scope) comes with at
least an implied claim of being in some sense in the public interest,
whether that claim is true is a different question.

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb 26 07:32:54 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:02:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] Managing the Internet in the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <20150226132349.66b09b04@quill>
References: <016501d05169$b6034d30$2209e790$@gmail.com>	<859F3803-5176-4BFE-86E1-C26B1C2B0960@