From kichango at gmail.com  Fri May  1 04:41:24 2015
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 08:41:24 +0000
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <21825.7414.6268.54541@world.std.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
	<1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
	<21825.7414.6268.54541@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-SMTE_6n7ZOt4ykiWArA4V8NW0q7_C_uNDL5e877XudA@mail.gmail.com>

And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is
enfranchisable and do they get enfranchised? - there is the question of who
is listened to? Are the stakeholders equally listened to or are some "more
equally" listened to than others? [1] In my experience, assuming we have
clear answers to Barry's great questions, this remains a persistent
challenge in MS processes where people consistently tend to listen more
other people they are culturally acquainted with. At times the risk of a MS
setting turning into a club is palpable.

On Apr 29, 2015 6:04 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>
> Or by whatever the process for approving decisions is, voting is to
> some extent a metaphor for any reasonably inclusive and transparent
> approval process.

Right! It has been my impression MS-ism tends to be skeptical about voting
per se and tends to prefer consensus processes not formally based on a
proper voting as known so far in demonstratic processes. One may understand
why, although one may or may not agree. Such voting requires well defined
boundaries ahead of time - the boundaries of the polity, of the
enfranchised, so far all individuals notwithstanding the opinion of the
current US Supreme Court - meaning those boundaries are closed at least at
some point. Once those boundaries are defined and implemented, it is a 'one
person one vote' business, which MS-ism does not find all that friendly.

Or am I mistaken in my reading?

/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent

[1] Please set aside cases such as IETF. We are discussing broader policies
which may impact potentially everyone and in which potentially anyone could
be involved, not just processes whereby technical artifacts are designed or
modified, issues requiring specialized knowledge which cannot be acquired
in a day or two of preparation by any (basicly) literate individual.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150501/f54aec8c/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  Fri May  1 05:01:20 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 14:31:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-SMTE_6n7ZOt4ykiWArA4V8NW0q7_C_uNDL5e877XudA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org> <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com> <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org> <1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com> <21825.7414.6268.54541@world.std.com> <CACTo+v-SMTE_6n7ZOt4ykiWArA4V8NW0q7_C_uNDL5e877XudA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29D54740-2827-4416-9B7E-8173F8A5B629@hserus.net>

Add a single extra question - who is / are the targets of active attempts to disenfranchise them from a process?

> On 01-May-2015, at 2:11 pm, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is enfranchisable and do they get enfranchised? - there is the question of who is listened to? Are the stakeholders equally listened to or are some "more equally" listened to than others? [1] In my experience, assuming we have clear answers to Barry's great questions, this remains a persistent challenge in MS processes where people consistently tend to listen more other people they are culturally acquainted with. At times the risk of a MS setting turning into a club is palpable.
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150501/f6a5001c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Fri May  1 05:58:01 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 05:58:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <21825.7414.6268.54541@world.std.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org> <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
 <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org> <1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com> <21825.7414.6268.54541@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxan3WpTZS_5rOvhetfF-vc6-UbdpRoGEY-PhCw+GTAaw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW, the usual characterization of Tyranny of the Majority is 51%
> voting to kill the other 49%.


"Tyranny of the majority" is directly related to the problem of how
minorities' interests are guarded.  It's not about a bare majority
overtaking nearly the other half.  The founders in the US, both at
state level and federal, were very concerned about government running
out of control, including a kind of mob rule in legislatures.   I
don't think anyone in this thread is referencing the term very well,
but for instance checks and balances function in part as checks on
simple majoritarianism (like bicameralism, the notion of a higher
house, processes that balance representation of states versus
populations such that more populous states like California and Texas
don't have inordinate influence, the electoral college based on the
structure of representation in the legislature, federalism, tripartite
government with judicial review, fundamental rights, etc.).
Constitutions put in lots of features to operate as checks on the
government getting out of control, and indeed minorities have little
else to rely on besides these structural elements of constitutions to
guard their interests.  Court cases on discrimination are often about
this sort of issue.


Seth


> The mitigation is clear boundaries on what can and cannot be voted on
> generally referred to as "rights", you cannot violate the following
> list of rights with a vote...(list, plus evolved case law).
>
> There's generally some way to modify the list usually involving voting
> but one hopes it requires an inherently difficult process, not a
> simple up/down vote. A term is "hysteresis" -- once rights have been
> laid down then by design it should be difficult to remove or limit
> them.
>
> This is government 101 perhaps but it's also not been addressed in any
> multistakeholder systems I've seen except perhaps through by-laws of a
> corporation which is significant!
>
> But to my mind one can't get to what can be voted on without first
> having some idea of who can vote. These limitations have to be laid
> out and approved.
>
> Or by whatever the process for approving decisions is, voting is to
> some extent a metaphor for any reasonably inclusive and transparent
> approval process. Humming comes to mind:
>
>      https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
>
> --
>         -Barry Shein
>
> The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
> Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri May  1 15:45:53 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 21:45:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] tyranny of majority (was Re: Debunking eight
  myths about multi-stakeholderism)
In-Reply-To: <60687DFD-B80D-4DAE-9791-5827834FFF10@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
 <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
 <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
 <1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
 <20150429113642.19853b2c@quill>
 <E1YnReW-000830-Pv@igcaucus.org>
 <60687DFD-B80D-4DAE-9791-5827834FFF10@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <E1YoGr5-00057B-Un@igcaucus.org>

At 20:51 29/04/2015, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>Whatever you do with your computer, you are still part a world that 
>is trying to avoid wars by peaceful means (national laws, 
>international laws and treaties). Nuclear weapons might be part of 
>that peace process but I leave this to the specialists.

Dear JC,

this is totally orthogonal to the issue. The world digital ecosystem 
has a constitution. That constitution is its source code (Lessig). 
Whatever you can discuss about the impact of the political, legal, 
sentimental, economic, intellectual, national, etc. ecosystems, you 
will not change that: my machine only obey its source code.

>More to my first point: your assumption is "...as long as my machine 
>can use the catenet the way I wish". Well this is something that 
>quite does not the fit the ordinary citizen.

Yes, it does. My machine uses the catenet the way both are designed. 
However, external political, legal, sentimental, economic, 
intellectual, national, etc. factors including cops, lack of money to 
subscribe, cyberterorists, power outage, etc. may impeach my machine 
to connect the catenet.

>Moreover it suggests a world of individualities that could one way 
>or another live by themselves, as far they do not interact with 
>others. OK I do play around a bit, but still your starting line 
>seems a bit individualistic when thinking of collective and public 
>interest. And therefore the reasoning might fall short of the real 
>issue which is not only about one accessing and using the catenet as 
>he wishes. The challenges we face go beyond that point.

No. You are outdated. The Information Society is deemed to be people 
centered. i.e. with billions of individual centers, what fits the 
cosmological model of Einstein. The ICANNET BUG (Being Unilaterally 
Global) is just a bug. That it pleases some is a consequence of the 
"don't call it a bug, call it a feature" syndrom. But at the end of 
the day multiple versions of the "MYCANN plug-in" will fix that. 
Creating another mess calling for an anti-multipluging fix.

>If the compass is "freedom to connect to the catenet", then maybe it 
>is better to be a pro US as they do love to give us Freedom here, 
>Freedom there. They love it so much because it resonates with 
>Free-market, with as very limited regulation (competition, 
>distortion, abuse...) So if this is all about freedom, and if we do 
>not find any reason to care about others, then we do not need any 
>such e-listing.

Hmmm ! ever heard of NSA? Patriot Act. Master/slave relation - or 
sometimes a consumer/server model?

I Heard about NSA-compatibility in 1985. Closed my shop. 
Economics/technology are now in favor of Relationnels Libres freeing 
themselves from the miltaro-industrial band. Let see what RFC 6852 
permissionless innovation principles lead to. Let set-up as 
post-google civil society Mitre project.

>Second point: what Barry says makes a lot of sense when coming to 
>legitimacy, or enfranchised stake-holders. This sense of chaos among 
>the "stake-holders", these who-ever that Jankélévitch would make fun 
>of, is a way to negate the collective burden. It flattens everything 
>and everyone in its due rights. Take the MS definition as per Larry 
>Strickling (thanks to Carolina for fowarding this to the list). It 
>might not endanger you wether you play in the system, or outside the 
>system. But it might be an issue for many others without all of your abilities.
>
>Strickling: "What do we mean by the multistakeholder model?  One 
>expert defines the multistakeholder model as different interest 
>groups coming together on an equal footing to "identify problems, 
>define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy 
>development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation."

I am not interested in wasting much more time in money selected 
expert meetings. I prefer running code and living mode. My role and 
responsibility in all this was and still is to make it work. They 
blocked me as non-NSA-compatible 30 years ago. Time has technically 
come for us to enjoy resuming the frozen innovation.

>Whatever RFC we talk about, we have an issue here.

Please explain. Most of architectural RFCs are good enough if they 
are respected.

>Where I tend to follow you is about the fact that the solution will 
>ultimately come from techies, to bypass all this domination, when 
>the degree of dominance will be recognized as a toxic wonder killing 
>societal fabric, democratic debate, encouraging all abuses... Open 
>roots and other ideas are interesting and challenging to the current 
>tech-order. Das Order! On that I believe your first option is the 
>right one, the second one being just a big pantomine.

It is no more a pantomine than Saddam's mass destruction weapons.
This is the way the US tried to lead the world in order to lead 
political consumers to sign TIPP, ACTA, etc.

>I still believe that politics (and our old fashion democratic 
>principles) need to fully step in this MS mess.

Democracy is out of scope. Democracy is for citizens, belonging to a 
city, located on a territory. It calls for a bouleuterion, archons and cops.

The digital ecosystem is the people's agora. We are in an agoric 
concept (i.e. polylectic logic). The US are in a an enthymeme vision 
(monolectic logic) : "We are the US, hence we rule the world". Things 
are slightly more complex. At least democracy is dialectic.

>It might sounds like two principles or concept opposing each other, 
>when they are not. Think of integration and decentralization. They 
>can accommodate and uphold each other. Surely we will go through 
>more blahblah.- before anything can happen, or before a group large 
>enough will become the obvious alternative to this stupidity.
>Debating is part of any democratic process.
>
>Trying to build on what you, Barry and others are saying.

The network is holocratic. We are a multitude of fringe to fringe VGN 
(virtual glocal networks) Masters, sharing ***our*** local digital 
and financial resources to build the global catenet we need. Can you 
explain me what ICANN brings to us, if they are not the cheapest, 
leanest, most efficient common secretariat to our common needs - i.e. 
mutual address plans, namespaces billions of roots, multitechnology 
parameter excel table keeper and interfunctional meeting report writer ?

Best
jfc



>Le 29 avr. 2015 à 15:05, Jefsey a écrit :
>
>>Gentlemen,
>>
>>it seems that all this are dreams in the air.
>>xxxxcracies are about government of several people. Here we 
>>consider the mutual governance of machines. I personnally do not 
>>give a damn about what you may think, vote, decide, etc. as long as 
>>my machine can use the catenet (i.e. the shared digital local 
>>resources that make the global network) the way I wish.
>>
>>The only thing that can happen to me is that you gather together in 
>>a "global community" (cf. RFC 6852) making your machines not to 
>>respect the RFCs and trying bloking mine. OK. That is your problem 
>>if I technically circumvent you - soemthing I and you have no doubt 
>>the Libre community can easily do.
>>
>>Next, you can decide to lobby the lawmaking process and send me 
>>cops to prevent me from using my machine along the RFCs. This is 
>>exactly what some of you are doing, who bet that the best cops for 
>>the job are the american ones.
>>
>>Here the response is (for those who care about the US weapons of 
>>mass destruction) :
>>- either to technically outsmart the american lawmakers (again as 
>>per RFC 6852, through non RFC standardization people will use) and 
>>disregard its cops, TPP, TAFTA, etc.
>>- or to make the odds so uncertain for the US that the US executive 
>>branch delays its transition to ICANN/DAVOS.
>>
>>I am afraid everything else is either international blahblahblah or 
>>local US election preparation.
>>Thank you to tell me where I am wrong ?
>>
>>jfc
>>
>>At 11:36 29/04/2015, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:15:35 +0200
>>>Jean-Christophe Nothias 
>>><<mailto:jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com>jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> > This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.
>>>
>>>In governance systems which have majority voting but not the other
>>>essential elements of the modern understanding of democracy, it will
>>>sometimes happen that tyrannical, i.e. human rights violating, decision
>>>proposals are supported by a majority of votes, and therefore
>>>considered adopted. A famous example was the state-sanctioned murder of
>>>Socrates in ancient Athens.
>>>
>>>In democratic governance systems of course in such a situation there is
>>>the possibility to get the outcome of the vote overturned by a court
>>>decision on the basis that it is a human rights violation.
>>>
>>>In democratic governance systems therefore tyranny of majority does not
>>>occur.
>>>
>>>Greetings,
>>>Norbert
>>>
>>>
>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>>Content-Disposition: inline
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     <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:
>>     <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
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150501/057f1e87/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Fri May  1 19:58:10 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 19:58:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] tyranny of majority (was Re: Debunking eight myths
 about multi-stakeholderism)
In-Reply-To: <20150429113642.19853b2c@quill>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org> <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
 <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org> <1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com> <20150429113642.19853b2c@quill>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFByRLA1_OnksLgkTY6LPLWY7yqZ12kCUtrSpFkbAbh=D6g@mail.gmail.com>

I wouldn't put it quite that way.  In democratic systems (with all
adequate components) we have the prospect of recourse.  But
legislatures acting by majority principles can go wrong, and regularly
do.  One could easily say we're living in the tyranny of a majority in
the US, where so much of what our federal legislature does flouts
basic principles.  We've had a long course of difficulty getting
recourse (for one thing, the ability to get standing in courts
regarding the long-standing concerns regarding surveillance) -- but
the important thing is that the foundation is there such that
(regarding judicial review) we can *eventually* get a judge to say
"but that's not the country we created."


Seth

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:15:35 +0200
> Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.
>
> In governance systems which have majority voting but not the other
> essential elements of the modern understanding of democracy, it will
> sometimes happen that tyrannical, i.e. human rights violating, decision
> proposals are supported by a majority of votes, and therefore
> considered adopted. A famous example was the state-sanctioned murder of
> Socrates in ancient Athens.
>
> In democratic governance systems of course in such a situation there is
> the possibility to get the outcome of the vote overturned by a court
> decision on the basis that it is a human rights violation.
>
> In democratic governance systems therefore tyranny of majority does not
> occur.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Fri May  1 19:59:22 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 19:59:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] tyranny of majority (was Re: Debunking eight myths
 about multi-stakeholderism)
In-Reply-To: <5540DEE9.5030201@apc.org>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org> <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
 <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org> <1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
 <20150429113642.19853b2c@quill> <5540DEE9.5030201@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFByCVYX3vo78Q1KqiHm9vAHaMVjMfn0qeJBDyDYAY+gXDA@mail.gmail.com>

That's far closer.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Tarakiyee <tarakiyee at apc.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I would agree that majority rule is no more essential to democracy
> than any other elements of democracy. Majority rule without democracy
> is simply mob rule.
>
> I think any democratic governance system that's coercive can succumb
> to mob rule or even to a well organised and well resourced minority.
> Limits on majority rule often fail in practice due to impunity and
> collective inaction.
>
> Specifically in the context of MS, it's important to recognise that
> multi-stakeholder processes are not all equal, an MS process with a
> democratic outlook would encourage deliberation, transparency and
> inclusion, all essential elements to mitigate tyranny, either by a
> minority or a majority.
>
> Best,
> Tarakiyee
>
> On 29/04/15 12:36, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:15:35 +0200 Jean-Christophe Nothias
>> <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.
>>
>> In governance systems which have majority voting but not the other
>> essential elements of the modern understanding of democracy, it
>> will sometimes happen that tyrannical, i.e. human rights violating,
>> decision proposals are supported by a majority of votes, and
>> therefore considered adopted. A famous example was the
>> state-sanctioned murder of Socrates in ancient Athens.
>>
>> In democratic governance systems of course in such a situation
>> there is the possibility to get the outcome of the vote overturned
>> by a court decision on the basis that it is a human rights
>> violation.
>>
>> In democratic governance systems therefore tyranny of majority does
>> not occur.
>>
>> Greetings, Norbert
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVQN7nAAoJEDehRReL/nRD4hsH/3dVrJn0votEpm9klSWZUpjP
> ti8m5s+6mA7KlA+foDLv7rpFQJhq1l7wMxfUyP7WvbfQNeIqa6EvPSgHG+Ar+VOl
> C7dXe1jwP0Iw7P57zfLeQx+XeWhpiHdAF3tIvgTlbFB3f9K3CvnZ2hykSr8bsJzq
> lx56ypMk2SfPT02lz5RGJUatn8oyskCz6I+f4YqtjlbX71cRlVxAloU/KzeKcWgi
> MiPPrYuRmYw+PRYZDmVK4fieNYYOsBtM6YRsGPE0xGgKARV6msfSilKboEsPWaP6
> JtUuyWCUmVDvcjD0uMIrtAo3LOIij+czaIUK3g+I0f39HijIOwizmA5d/fbWSTw=
> =sPIi
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Fri May  1 20:22:19 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 20:22:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] tyranny of majority (was Re: Debunking eight myths
 about multi-stakeholderism)
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFByCVYX3vo78Q1KqiHm9vAHaMVjMfn0qeJBDyDYAY+gXDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org> <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
 <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org> <1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
 <20150429113642.19853b2c@quill> <5540DEE9.5030201@apc.org> <CAJkfFByCVYX3vo78Q1KqiHm9vAHaMVjMfn0qeJBDyDYAY+gXDA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxCcZgAa=CVxKgpZw4opGpft9-G4tnxMW-aSV3yRaZ9EQ@mail.gmail.com>

(Well, parts of it  :-)  )

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's far closer.
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Tarakiyee <tarakiyee at apc.org> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I would agree that majority rule is no more essential to democracy
>> than any other elements of democracy. Majority rule without democracy
>> is simply mob rule.
>>
>> I think any democratic governance system that's coercive can succumb
>> to mob rule or even to a well organised and well resourced minority.
>> Limits on majority rule often fail in practice due to impunity and
>> collective inaction.
>>
>> Specifically in the context of MS, it's important to recognise that
>> multi-stakeholder processes are not all equal, an MS process with a
>> democratic outlook would encourage deliberation, transparency and
>> inclusion, all essential elements to mitigate tyranny, either by a
>> minority or a majority.
>>
>> Best,
>> Tarakiyee
>>
>> On 29/04/15 12:36, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:15:35 +0200 Jean-Christophe Nothias
>>> <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.
>>>
>>> In governance systems which have majority voting but not the other
>>> essential elements of the modern understanding of democracy, it
>>> will sometimes happen that tyrannical, i.e. human rights violating,
>>> decision proposals are supported by a majority of votes, and
>>> therefore considered adopted. A famous example was the
>>> state-sanctioned murder of Socrates in ancient Athens.
>>>
>>> In democratic governance systems of course in such a situation
>>> there is the possibility to get the outcome of the vote overturned
>>> by a court decision on the basis that it is a human rights
>>> violation.
>>>
>>> In democratic governance systems therefore tyranny of majority does
>>> not occur.
>>>
>>> Greetings, Norbert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>>> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVQN7nAAoJEDehRReL/nRD4hsH/3dVrJn0votEpm9klSWZUpjP
>> ti8m5s+6mA7KlA+foDLv7rpFQJhq1l7wMxfUyP7WvbfQNeIqa6EvPSgHG+Ar+VOl
>> C7dXe1jwP0Iw7P57zfLeQx+XeWhpiHdAF3tIvgTlbFB3f9K3CvnZ2hykSr8bsJzq
>> lx56ypMk2SfPT02lz5RGJUatn8oyskCz6I+f4YqtjlbX71cRlVxAloU/KzeKcWgi
>> MiPPrYuRmYw+PRYZDmVK4fieNYYOsBtM6YRsGPE0xGgKARV6msfSilKboEsPWaP6
>> JtUuyWCUmVDvcjD0uMIrtAo3LOIij+czaIUK3g+I0f39HijIOwizmA5d/fbWSTw=
>> =sPIi
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your 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 kichango at gmail.com  Sat May  2 00:29:37 2015
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 04:29:37 +0000
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-SMTE_6n7ZOt4ykiWArA4V8NW0q7_C_uNDL5e877XudA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
	<1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
	<21825.7414.6268.54541@world.std.com>
	<CACTo+v-SMTE_6n7ZOt4ykiWArA4V8NW0q7_C_uNDL5e877XudA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_c=pbA+UHUN8v3VaCGKV=-x4HzUSog4mtSRoVTJ09=vw@mail.gmail.com>

Obviously, I meant in my previous post:

And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is
enfranchisable and *how do they get enfranchised?

/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
On May 1, 2015 8:41 AM, "Mawaki Chango" <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is
> enfranchisable and do they get enfranchised? - there is the question of who
> is listened to? Are the stakeholders equally listened to or are some "more
> equally" listened to than others? [1] In my experience, assuming we have
> clear answers to Barry's great questions, this remains a persistent
> challenge in MS processes where people consistently tend to listen more
> other people they are culturally acquainted with. At times the risk of a MS
> setting turning into a club is palpable.
>
> On Apr 29, 2015 6:04 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> > Or by whatever the process for approving decisions is, voting is to
> > some extent a metaphor for any reasonably inclusive and transparent
> > approval process.
>
> Right! It has been my impression MS-ism tends to be skeptical about voting
> per se and tends to prefer consensus processes not formally based on a
> proper voting as known so far in demonstratic processes. One may understand
> why, although one may or may not agree. Such voting requires well defined
> boundaries ahead of time - the boundaries of the polity, of the
> enfranchised, so far all individuals notwithstanding the opinion of the
> current US Supreme Court - meaning those boundaries are closed at least at
> some point. Once those boundaries are defined and implemented, it is a 'one
> person one vote' business, which MS-ism does not find all that friendly.
>
> Or am I mistaken in my reading?
>
> /Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
>
> [1] Please set aside cases such as IETF. We are discussing broader
> policies which may impact potentially everyone and in which potentially
> anyone could be involved, not just processes whereby technical artifacts
> are designed or modified, issues requiring specialized knowledge which
> cannot be acquired in a day or two of preparation by any (basicly) literate
> individual.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150502/18b65eaa/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 May  2 01:08:11 2015
From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (ymshana2003)
Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 07:08:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
Message-ID: <w0sbg3yrgyeijxg1mqe8j2g3.1430543291532@email.android.com>

Hello there,

As an observer, I find that this discussion has gone round and round; up and down different labes ot thoughts.

There has been a lot of Learning amongst the group and also tendencies of pulling and pushing each other at some stage.  

A conclusion on the Way Forward would have been reached by now. However, it is not possible to conclude since there is rigidity which makes negotiations impossible. All in all, the issue at hand is not yet 'belonging' to the Community. It is still a wish wish situation unless more research is carried out to find out about the Status of the Internet as an entity in line with the US Govt.

Kind regards.

Yassin


Sent from Samsung Mobile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150502/2d267ca4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lorena at eurodig.org  Sat May  2 05:00:37 2015
From: lorena at eurodig.org (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 11:00:37 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Call for public comment: MS statement on Net
 Neutrality
Message-ID: <491426322.721547.1430557237388.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbaltgw00.schlund.de>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150502/f8285c0a/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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Sat May  2 16:34:21 2015
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 22:34:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] A Response re. Just Net Coalition and Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ABB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <6.0.3.0.2.20150130085324.0750c7f0@mail.nexus.ie> <1103216204.7882.1422614033622.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n02> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ABB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <554534CD.9060708@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Am 30.01.2015 um 12:04 schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":

> good that you remember the Geneva CS declaration from 2003. 

FWIW, it's here -also the CS statement on the 2005 WSIS II:
<http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/nav/14.htm>

> As you
> know, the WSIS 10 conference in December 2015 will be a purely
> intergovernmental meeting with a final intergovernmental document.
> They want to have a multistakeholder discussion phase before the
> intergovernmental negotiations phase. With other words, there is no
> way for CS to participate in the drafting of the final document from
> a CS perspective.

Which is a shame for those who've been around in 2002-2005, but shows
how the governments are claiming more control, as predicted by
Goldsmith/Wu back then..

> It would be great if somebody could start also a drafting process for
> a CS Statement for WSIS 10+ in New York. Such an Independent document
> should take the Geneva Declarationm from 2003 as a starting point and
> check what has been achieved and what not and what remains to be
> done. 

And what new issues have appeared in the last 10 years...

> One could formulate some new objectives and pout this into an
> Independent document called "A Civil Society WSIS 2025 Agenda".

Would be nice, yes.

Best, Ralf

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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat May  2 17:16:35 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 02:46:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] A Response re. Just Net Coalition and Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <554534CD.9060708@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <6.0.3.0.2.20150130085324.0750c7f0@mail.nexus.ie> <1103216204.7882.1422614033622.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n02> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ABB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <554534CD.9060708@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <55453EB3.2090702@itforchange.net>



On Sunday 03 May 2015 02:04 AM, Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> Am 30.01.2015 um 12:04 schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
>
>> good that you remember the Geneva CS declaration from 2003. 
> FWIW, it's here -also the CS statement on the 2005 WSIS II:
> <http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/nav/14.htm>
>
>> As you
>> know, the WSIS 10 conference in December 2015 will be a purely
>> intergovernmental meeting with a final intergovernmental document.
>> They want to have a multistakeholder discussion phase before the
>> intergovernmental negotiations phase. With other words, there is no
>> way for CS to participate in the drafting of the final document from
>> a CS perspective.

Do however know/ remember that

1. Developing countries fought for almost two years seeking a WSIS plus
10 'summit' in the full original WSIS style, with prep coms and all ,
which would have followed all practises adopted during the original
WSIS... There are G 77 drafts for UN resolution with that language.

2. US led developed countries group simply refused to allow it, strongly
and consistently, which is why the UN assembly decision about WSIS plus
10 kept being postponed over a year and a half, and *which is why* we
are having a truncated WSIS 10 in NY rather than a full summit process
with preparatory processes in Geneva.

3. Rather significantly, and that may interest this list even more,
prominent civil society players, either actively or implicitly, followed
and supported the US led developed countries' approach. Which of course
have contributed to where we are now with the WSIS plus 10. I often
raised this issue  during the last many months, seeking support for G 77
position for a 'full' WSIS plus 10  but always met a stony silence.
Wolfgang, would you refuse this fact that CS did not seek original WSIS
style WSIS plus 10 when developing countries were fighting for it, and
that includes yourself... So why rue it now... This to me appears
extremely strange. Other then, well, of course, to play the routine band
of decrying 'governments (read developing country governments) claiming
more control'. No, this is untrue.. WSIS is happening in NY in a
truncated manner - not following original WSIS processes - not because
of G 77 but because of the so call global IG multistakeholder-ists - led
by the US, and including a very big section of IG CS, who want to
sideline if not fully abandon UN with respect to any role in global IG.
Lets please not distort history.

Not only active efforts were made by the so called global IG
multistakeholderists, including civil society players, to downplay WSIS
plus 10, and that still continues, formations like the NetMundial
initiative, as also the London process (whose latest meeting took place
in The Hague) are all part of the plot to take global Internet
governance and policy out of the UN to captured spaces. After having
fully contributed to developing that situation, how convenient now to
rue the truncated NY based WSIS plus 10! Any thing and every thing goes
as long as it can contribute to a well orchestrated dominant discourse
which basically  simply supports the US led global IG status quo.

parminder
> Which is a shame for those who've been around in 2002-2005, but shows
> how the governments are claiming more control, as predicted by
> Goldsmith/Wu back then..
>
>> It would be great if somebody could start also a drafting process for
>> a CS Statement for WSIS 10+ in New York. Such an Independent document
>> should take the Geneva Declarationm from 2003 as a starting point and
>> check what has been achieved and what not and what remains to be
>> done. 
> And what new issues have appeared in the last 10 years...
>
>> One could formulate some new objectives and pout this into an
>> Independent document called "A Civil Society WSIS 2025 Agenda".
> Would be nice, yes.
>
> Best, Ralf
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150503/240bf145/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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Sat May  2 17:38:43 2015
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 23:38:43 +0200
Subject: [governance] A Response re. Just Net Coalition and Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <55453EB3.2090702@itforchange.net>
References: <6.0.3.0.2.20150130085324.0750c7f0@mail.nexus.ie> <1103216204.7882.1422614033622.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n02> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ABB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <554534CD.9060708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <55453EB3.2090702@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <554543E3.3060408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Am 02.05.2015 um 23:16 schrieb parminder:

> Do however know/ remember that
> 
> 1. Developing countries fought for almost two years seeking a WSIS plus
> 10 'summit' in the full original WSIS style, with prep coms and all ,
> which would have followed all practises adopted during the original
> WSIS... There are G 77 drafts for UN resolution with that language.
> 
> 2. US led developed countries group simply refused to allow it, strongly
> and consistently, which is why the UN assembly decision about WSIS plus
> 10 kept being postponed over a year and a half, and *which is why* we
> are having a truncated WSIS 10 in NY rather than a full summit process
> with preparatory processes in Geneva.
> 
> 3. Rather significantly, and that may interest this list even more,
> prominent civil society players, either actively or implicitly, followed
> and supported the US led developed countries' approach. Which of course
> have contributed to where we are now with the WSIS plus 10. (...)

.. which sounds like something to be addressed in a CS declaration for
the WSIS+10.

(But then it should also mention that NetMundial achieved what the IGF
(I guess intentionally) never achieved: An adopted multi-stakeholder
document. Boy, what did we think we could achieve with the dynamic
coalitions back then... But I'm getting melancolic.)

Best, Ralf

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

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Sat May  2 18:06:42 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 00:06:42 +0200
Subject: [governance] A Response re. Just Net Coalition and Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <554543E3.3060408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <6.0.3.0.2.20150130085324.0750c7f0@mail.nexus.ie>
 <1103216204.7882.1422614033622.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n02> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ABB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <554534CD.9060708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <55453EB3.2090702@itforchange.net> <554543E3.3060408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYptZOYTSNjRBDPGGD-dbgE7Mf-EV_702_nDmj7yTm3_BA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
wrote:


> (But then it should also mention that NetMundial achieved what the IGF
> (I guess intentionally) never achieved: An adopted multi-stakeholder
> document.


Adopted by whom ?  An urban legend fabricated by ICANN.

Louis.

>
> Best, Ralf
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150503/c3d00b0b/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 May  3 04:36:26 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 14:06:26 +0530
Subject: [governance] A Response re. Just Net Coalition and Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <554543E3.3060408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <6.0.3.0.2.20150130085324.0750c7f0@mail.nexus.ie> <1103216204.7882.1422614033622.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n02> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ABB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <554534CD.9060708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <55453EB3.2090702@itforchange.net> <554543E3.3060408@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <5545DE0A.4040002@itforchange.net>



On Sunday 03 May 2015 03:08 AM, Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> SNIP
>
> 3. Rather significantly, and that may interest this list even more,
> prominent civil society players, either actively or implicitly, followed
> and supported the US led developed countries' approach. Which of course
> have contributed to where we are now with the WSIS plus 10. (...)
> .. which sounds like something to be addressed in a CS declaration for
> the WSIS+10.

Yes, Ralf, but would you not find it rather odd if a lot of people who
actively helped precipitate a particular situation now adapt or even
sign on to a CS declaration decrying that situation! That was the point
I was making... And good to hear you again after a long time.... parminder
>
> (But then it should also mention that NetMundial achieved what the IGF
> (I guess intentionally) never achieved: An adopted multi-stakeholder
> document. Boy, what did we think we could achieve with the dynamic
> coalitions back then... But I'm getting melancolic.)
>
> Best, Ralf
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150503/349cbc38/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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Sun May  3 05:11:41 2015
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 11:11:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] A Response re. Just Net Coalition and Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <5545DE0A.4040002@itforchange.net>
References: <6.0.3.0.2.20150130085324.0750c7f0@mail.nexus.ie> <1103216204.7882.1422614033622.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n02> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ABB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <554534CD.9060708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <55453EB3.2090702@itforchange.net> <554543E3.3060408@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5545DE0A.4040002@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <50B975B6-0E03-4554-AEEB-D48FB1C2470B@gmail.com>

Thanks to both of you for this interesting and enlightening exchange.

I wonder if part these same people will ever find their way back to speaking truth to citizens and power. So much propaganda, so many damned lies, so gracious and generous vested interests. Multistakeholderism as a driver of public policy decision making is a masquerade that will die from its own vacuums and flaws. It will ultimately break the Internet. The ones pretending to represent a so-called 'from the Internet community' that never existed  - except in the transnational balance sheet of digital rubber barons - are accomplice for this CS failure. CS doesn't need multistakeholderism to be heard: would CS be united and spot on, its influence would be entirely intact and 'efficient'. The digital MSist emperor-size bed will infant nothing except keeping the current  the US-ymmetry alive.

Sad!

JC


Le 3 mai 2015 à 10:36, parminder a écrit :

> 
> 
> On Sunday 03 May 2015 03:08 AM, Ralf Bendrath wrote:
>> SNIP
>> 
>> 3. Rather significantly, and that may interest this list even more,
>> prominent civil society players, either actively or implicitly, followed
>> and supported the US led developed countries' approach. Which of course
>> have contributed to where we are now with the WSIS plus 10. (...)
>> .. which sounds like something to be addressed in a CS declaration for
>> the WSIS+10.
> 
> Yes, Ralf, but would you not find it rather odd if a lot of people who actively helped precipitate a particular situation now adapt or even sign on to a CS declaration decrying that situation! That was the point I was making... And good to hear you again after a long time.... parminder 
>> 
>> (But then it should also mention that NetMundial achieved what the IGF
>> (I guess intentionally) never achieved: An adopted multi-stakeholder
>> document. Boy, what did we think we could achieve with the dynamic
>> coalitions back then... But I'm getting melancolic.)
>> 
>> Best, Ralf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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/20150503/53bca432/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 May  3 05:23:39 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 14:53:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] A Response re. Just Net Coalition and Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYptZOYTSNjRBDPGGD-dbgE7Mf-EV_702_nDmj7yTm3_BA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.0.3.0.2.20150130085324.0750c7f0@mail.nexus.ie> <1103216204.7882.1422614033622.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n02> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ABB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <554534CD.9060708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <55453EB3.2090702@itforchange.net> <554543E3.3060408@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CA+EjHYptZOYTSNjRBDPGGD-dbgE7Mf-EV_702_nDmj7yTm3_BA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5545E91B.7080807@itforchange.net>



On Sunday 03 May 2015 03:36 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Ralf Bendrath
> <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de <mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>> wrote:
>  
>
>     (But then it should also mention that NetMundial achieved what the IGF
>     (I guess intentionally) never achieved: An adopted multi-stakeholder
>     document.
>
>
> Adopted by whom ?  An urban legend fabricated by ICANN.

Yes, the strong writes history, and facts matter little.... A small set
of countries actually supported the document, most just kept  quiet and
played along in diplomatic nicety, knowing that it was just an ordinary
conference document. Majority of the civil society present at the venue
protested and opposed the doc immediately when it was presented in the
final session - while we may not even begin to talk of the civil society
not present.... But then, the powerful have it! The powerful have it!
The motion is passed.

Net Mundial process was begun with the best intentions by the
Brazilians, but was always meant to be hijacked by ICANN fronting for
the US (whose plan it originally was to stop Dlima from going to the UN
as she had promised) and was indeed hijacked. Finally, it was a document
by, for and of the US led multistakeholderist group, with global
business and the ICANN invested technical community in the tow, and with
support from a fairly good section of IG civil society (the reasons for
which are complex and I will not go into here). So basically one -
'equal-footing multistakeholderist'  - section of the hotly contested IG
space adopted a document at the NetMundial meeting and have since been
unilaterally declaring that to be the most important - even foundational
- document for global IG. This is plain and simple use of ample
resources at the command of the powerful to, as Louis rights says,
fabricate a legend, and write a fabricated account of history.

parminder



>
> Louis.
>
>
>     Best, Ralf
>
>  
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150503/26633d0b/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 f.massit at orange.fr  Sun May  3 06:06:11 2015
From: f.massit at orange.fr (=?utf-8?Q?fran=C3=A7oise46?=)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 12:06:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] A Response re. Just Net Coalition and Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <5545E91B.7080807@itforchange.net>
References: <6.0.3.0.2.20150130085324.0750c7f0@mail.nexus.ie> <1103216204.7882.1422614033622.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n02> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ABB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <554534CD.9060708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <55453EB3.2090702@itforchange.net> <554543E3.3060408@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CA+EjHYptZOYTSNjRBDPGGD-dbgE7Mf-EV_702_nDmj7yTm3_BA@mail.gmail.com> <5545E91B.7080807@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5596788B-EE8D-4EA3-AD60-EFB59658B903@orange.fr>

Echoing the remarks below, I remember Howard Zinn’s quotation in his famous book "A People's History of the United States <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States> » :
History is written by Hunters, but Rabbits can and have to write theirs.

Best ,

Françoise Massit-Folléa
f.massit at orange.fr

> Le 3 mai 2015 à 11:23, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday 03 May 2015 03:36 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de <mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>> wrote:
>>  
>> (But then it should also mention that NetMundial achieved what the IGF
>> (I guess intentionally) never achieved: An adopted multi-stakeholder
>> document.
>> 
>> Adopted by whom ?  An urban legend fabricated by ICANN.
> 
> Yes, the strong writes history, and facts matter little.... A small set of countries actually supported the document, most just kept  quiet and played along in diplomatic nicety, knowing that it was just an ordinary conference document. Majority of the civil society present at the venue protested and opposed the doc immediately when it was presented in the final session - while we may not even begin to talk of the civil society not present.... But then, the powerful have it! The powerful have it! The motion is passed. 
> 
> Net Mundial process was begun with the best intentions by the Brazilians, but was always meant to be hijacked by ICANN fronting for the US (whose plan it originally was to stop Dlima from going to the UN as she had promised) and was indeed hijacked. Finally, it was a document by, for and of the US led multistakeholderist group, with global business and the ICANN invested technical community in the tow, and with support from a fairly good section of IG civil society (the reasons for which are complex and I will not go into here). So basically one - 'equal-footing multistakeholderist'  - section of the hotly contested IG space adopted a document at the NetMundial meeting and have since been unilaterally declaring that to be the most important - even foundational - document for global IG. This is plain and simple use of ample resources at the command of the powerful to, as Louis rights says, fabricate a legend, and write a fabricated account of history. 
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Louis.
>> 
>> Best, Ralf
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 <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/20150503/b2081aa0/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 May  3 09:49:17 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 10:49:17 -0300
Subject: [governance] A Response re. Just Net Coalition and Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <50B975B6-0E03-4554-AEEB-D48FB1C2470B@gmail.com>
References: <6.0.3.0.2.20150130085324.0750c7f0@mail.nexus.ie> <1103216204.7882.1422614033622.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n02> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ABB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <554534CD.9060708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <55453EB3.2090702@itforchange.net> <554543E3.3060408@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5545DE0A.4040002@itforchange.net> <50B975B6-0E03-4554-AEEB-D48FB1C2470B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5546275D.8090506@gmail.com>


Dear Jean-Christophe and friends,
many thanks for this clear words.
greetings, willi, Cordoba, Argentina


Am 03-May-15 um 06:11 schrieb Jean-Christophe Nothias:
> Thanks to both of you for this interesting and enlightening exchange.
>
> I wonder if part these same people will ever find their way back to speaking truth to citizens and power. So much propaganda, so many damned lies, so gracious and generous vested interests. Multistakeholderism as a driver of public policy decision making is a masquerade that will die from its own vacuums and flaws. It will ultimately break the Internet. The ones pretending to represent a so-called 'from the Internet community' that never existed  - except in the transnational balance sheet of digital rubber barons - are accomplice for this CS failure. CS doesn't need multistakeholderism to be heard: would CS be united and spot on, its influence would be entirely intact and 'efficient'. The digital MSist emperor-size bed will infant nothing except keeping the current  the US-ymmetry alive.
>
> Sad!
>
> JC
>

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

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

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

From karl at cavebear.com  Sun May  3 14:56:19 2015
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 11:56:19 -0700
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <21825.4993.483415.349770@world.std.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org> <21825.4993.483415.349770@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <55466F53.7010502@cavebear.com>


On 4/29/15 10:23 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> Ok, let's try this then:
>
> Is EFF a stakeholder?
No.   No thing that exists merely as an abstraction of law or accounting 
ought to be given power in the making of decisions.

EFF employs many human people who would all be proper holders of a 
franchise to participate in the making of whatever decision is to be 
made.  Each of whom would be free to follow the EFF position or not.

EFF as an organization would, of course, be able to provide its 
expertise - as would any other organization from the NRA to the ITU to 
Boeing to Joe's Bar and Grill - but it would merely be proffered advice 
and would have no weight in the making of decisions beyond its power to 
persuade those (individual humans) or a human who has been designated by 
those people to act on their behalf, in other words a designated 
representative.

I am amused by how easy it is to corrupt stakeholder systems.  Under 
ICANN's rubric I have many hats in which I am a "stakeholder" and get to 
put my replicated thumb multiple times onto the scale of decision.  I 
am, of course, a user of the internet, I own and control several 
for-profit corporate entities, I participate in several non-profit 
organizations, I hold domain names and IP addresses from before the era 
of ICANN and the RIRs, I've authored full internet standards, I own 
several trademarks and many copyrights and even some patents, I'm a 
citizen of more than one country, and I am also an attorney (both 
California and US Federal).

So under a system of stakeholders I get more places to stand and try to 
project my influence than the average internet user.   That, of course, 
doesn't mean that I get my way - I tend to espouse rather liberal 
human-over-corporation values - which clearly face huge mountains of 
opposition.  But there are others who are far more capable and 
manipulative than I am, and have far more resources, money, and time.  
Consider the trademark protection lobby - they are quite well funded, 
well focused, and under the ICANN system they get, and use, multiple 
"stakeholder" seats (as intellectual property interests, as business 
interests, via their exaggerated influence in governments, and via the 
"at large").

When one recognizes mental abstractions - such as the collection known 
as EFF or the collection known as Verizon - to have the piece of the 
power to make decisions then that reduces the power of humans.  It's a 
zero-sum game - the more we give to legal fictions, such as corporations 
or trade groups, then the less there is for individual people.

I am reminded of some of the mud that was thrown at the ICANN elections 
in year 2000: that some countries and large corporations were trying to 
influence their employees to vote in certain ways, and that as a 
consequence it was asserted that those elections were tainted.  Yet 
under the stakeholder system those same countries and corporations would 
get actual power, actual votes - why care about the opinions of mere 
people when the CEO can decide what is good for them?

             --karl--



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

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

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

From ymshana2003 at gmail.com  Mon May  4 02:40:43 2015
From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (ymshana2003)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 08:40:43 +0200
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
Message-ID: <vnixf8my0py22fxgtcqd5vsh.1430721643911@email.android.com>

+1


Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> 
Date:03/05/2015  20:56  (GMT+02:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism 


On 4/29/15 10:23 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> Ok, let's try this then:
>
> Is EFF a stakeholder?
No.   No thing that exists merely as an abstraction of law or accounting 
ought to be given power in the making of decisions.

EFF employs many human people who would all be proper holders of a 
franchise to participate in the making of whatever decision is to be 
made.  Each of whom would be free to follow the EFF position or not.

EFF as an organization would, of course, be able to provide its 
expertise - as would any other organization from the NRA to the ITU to 
Boeing to Joe's Bar and Grill - but it would merely be proffered advice 
and would have no weight in the making of decisions beyond its power to 
persuade those (individual humans) or a human who has been designated by 
those people to act on their behalf, in other words a designated 
representative.

I am amused by how easy it is to corrupt stakeholder systems.  Under 
ICANN's rubric I have many hats in which I am a "stakeholder" and get to 
put my replicated thumb multiple times onto the scale of decision.  I 
am, of course, a user of the internet, I own and control several 
for-profit corporate entities, I participate in several non-profit 
organizations, I hold domain names and IP addresses from before the era 
of ICANN and the RIRs, I've authored full internet standards, I own 
several trademarks and many copyrights and even some patents, I'm a 
citizen of more than one country, and I am also an attorney (both 
California and US Federal).

So under a system of stakeholders I get more places to stand and try to 
project my influence than the average internet user.   That, of course, 
doesn't mean that I get my way - I tend to espouse rather liberal 
human-over-corporation values - which clearly face huge mountains of 
opposition.  But there are others who are far more capable and 
manipulative than I am, and have far more resources, money, and time.  
Consider the trademark protection lobby - they are quite well funded, 
well focused, and under the ICANN system they get, and use, multiple 
"stakeholder" seats (as intellectual property interests, as business 
interests, via their exaggerated influence in governments, and via the 
"at large").

When one recognizes mental abstractions - such as the collection known 
as EFF or the collection known as Verizon - to have the piece of the 
power to make decisions then that reduces the power of humans.  It's a 
zero-sum game - the more we give to legal fictions, such as corporations 
or trade groups, then the less there is for individual people.

I am reminded of some of the mud that was thrown at the ICANN elections 
in year 2000: that some countries and large corporations were trying to 
influence their employees to vote in certain ways, and that as a 
consequence it was asserted that those elections were tainted.  Yet 
under the stakeholder system those same countries and corporations would 
get actual power, actual votes - why care about the opinions of mere 
people when the CEO can decide what is good for them?

             --karl--




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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your 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/20150504/80c3430a/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  Mon May  4 04:46:52 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 10:46:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about  multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <55466F53.7010502@cavebear.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
 <553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
 <553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
 <21825.4993.483415.349770@world.std.com>
 <55466F53.7010502@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <E1YpC0w-0004Ka-7D@igcaucus.org>

Karl,
digital omnistakeholderism means that my machine is my ballot paper 
in the global voting emergence where ICANN is just another political 
lobby and sadly IETF has opted for the NTIA/FCC as its eventual leader.
jfc


At 20:56 03/05/2015, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>On 4/29/15 10:23 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
>>Ok, let's try this then:
>>
>>Is EFF a stakeholder?
>No.   No thing that exists merely as an abstraction of law or 
>accounting ought to be given power in the making of decisions.
>
>EFF employs many human people who would all be proper holders of a 
>franchise to participate in the making of whatever decision is to be 
>made.  Each of whom would be free to follow the EFF position or not.
>
>EFF as an organization would, of course, be able to provide its 
>expertise - as would any other organization from the NRA to the ITU 
>to Boeing to Joe's Bar and Grill - but it would merely be proffered 
>advice and would have no weight in the making of decisions beyond 
>its power to persuade those (individual humans) or a human who has 
>been designated by those people to act on their behalf, in other 
>words a designated representative.
>
>I am amused by how easy it is to corrupt stakeholder systems.  Under 
>ICANN's rubric I have many hats in which I am a "stakeholder" and 
>get to put my replicated thumb multiple times onto the scale of 
>decision.  I am, of course, a user of the internet, I own and 
>control several for-profit corporate entities, I participate in 
>several non-profit organizations, I hold domain names and IP 
>addresses from before the era of ICANN and the RIRs, I've authored 
>full internet standards, I own several trademarks and many 
>copyrights and even some patents, I'm a citizen of more than one 
>country, and I am also an attorney (both California and US Federal).
>
>So under a system of stakeholders I get more places to stand and try 
>to project my influence than the average internet user.   That, of 
>course, doesn't mean that I get my way - I tend to espouse rather 
>liberal human-over-corporation values - which clearly face huge 
>mountains of opposition.  But there are others who are far more 
>capable and manipulative than I am, and have far more resources, 
>money, and time.
>Consider the trademark protection lobby - they are quite well 
>funded, well focused, and under the ICANN system they get, and use, 
>multiple "stakeholder" seats (as intellectual property interests, as 
>business interests, via their exaggerated influence in governments, 
>and via the "at large").
>
>When one recognizes mental abstractions - such as the collection 
>known as EFF or the collection known as Verizon - to have the piece 
>of the power to make decisions then that reduces the power of 
>humans.  It's a zero-sum game - the more we give to legal fictions, 
>such as corporations or trade groups, then the less there is for 
>individual people.
>
>I am reminded of some of the mud that was thrown at the ICANN 
>elections in year 2000: that some countries and large corporations 
>were trying to influence their employees to vote in certain ways, 
>and that as a consequence it was asserted that those elections were 
>tainted.  Yet under the stakeholder system those same countries and 
>corporations would get actual power, actual votes - why care about 
>the opinions of mere people when the CEO can decide what is good for them?
>
>             --karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Mon May  4 13:33:53 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 13:33:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 Review and the CSTD
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwgwEY7YnPMO8k5EYFjrJXc4NMf6c7J9ACnuxrME_7_Cg@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:23 PM
Subject: On WSIS+10 Review and the CSTD
To: internetpolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>


The WSIS+10 review process does not address the special contributions
that the Internet makes to the Information Society's goals by its
distinctive characteristics.  It solely focuses on ICTs in general and
does not distinguish the open Internet from specialized services or
other types of networks.  The Information Society's performance
measures exhibit the same defect.

The following letter to the UN GIS has been forwarded to the CSTD.  It
offers recommendations to assure that the Information Society project
addresses the relationship between its initiatives and the Internet:
http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/statements/wsis-10-letter/

Also see the analysis of the performance measures here:
http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2014/03/25/wsis-measures-understanding-impacts-on-the-internet/

The following letter called attention to the Opinion submitted by the
Internet Systems Consortium to the WTPF, also on this concern:
http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/02/15/supporters-letter-to-informal-experts-group/
http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/on-the-opinion/
http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/on-the-opinion/opinion-streamlined/
http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0049/en


Seth

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

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

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

From toml at communisphere.com  Mon May  4 14:51:31 2015
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 14:51:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] A message from the bottom on city TLD governance
In-Reply-To: <554788E3.9060100@communisphere.com>
References: <554788E3.9060100@communisphere.com>
Message-ID: <5547BFB3.5080609@communisphere.com>

With multistakeholder governance a bottom-up process, I thought the list 
would be interested in the experiences we've had here in New York City 
with the .nyc TLD. While it's still under a year since our TLD was 
activated, there are some experience that might aide those seeking a 
global structure.

Our post "Toward Effective Governance Of The .nyc TLD" is available at 
http://wp.me/pBzzv-A6 and reprinted below.

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt

-----------------------------------------------
Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair
Connecting.nyc Inc.
(former) Member, .NYC Community Advisory Board
TomL at connectingnyc.org <mailto:toml at communisphere.com>
Connectingnyc.org <http://Connectingnyc.org>

Jackson Hts., NYC
718 639 4222

Toward Effective Governance Of The .nyc TLD (from http://wp.me/pBzzv-A6):
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Toward Effective Governance Of The .nyc TLD
    <http://www.connectingnyc.org/toward-effective-governance-of-the-nyc-tld/>

Posted by: Editor <http://www.connectingnyc.org/author/editor/>

city hall question 
<http://www.connectingnyc.org/toward-effective-governance-of-the-nyc-tld/city-hall-question/>Jackson 
Hts., New York, April 29, 2015 – While there are no published governance 
documents for the .nyc TLD, it’s our understanding that oversight is 
shared by representatives from the Department of Information and Telecom 
Technology, the Economic Development Corporation, the Office of 
Innovation and Technology, with the Department of Law advising. It’s a 
fluid process outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with the 
contractor implementing consensus decisions. But who does what and the 
existence (or not) of channels for public engagement remains unclear.

Having emerged from the city’s democratic governance structure, we 
acknowledge the MOU as legitimate by traditional standards. However, 
considering the plethora of roles our city’s TLD will play, we believe 
additional channels for public engagement are essential – especially in 
these early days of .nyc’s development. Before offering our suggestions 
on an improved governance structure, we’d like to present some thoughts 
on the context in which .nyc exists.

  * Our City Charter was approved in 1987, before the Internet as we
    know it existed. It provides little guidance for oversight of .nyc
    or other Net resources.
  * New York City is among the first to develop a city specific-TLD and
    is ploughing virgin pastures with no experience among other global
    cities to draw upon.
  * Experience and expertise for operating city TLDs is emerging on a
    daily basis here and in the 30 other global cities developing their
    own TLDs.
  * The Internet will become an increasingly vital part of our city’s
    social and economic health in the coming years. Internet access,
    training, and our domain names must be managed with utmost care.
  * This is the Internet, it’s 2015, and people – especially our younger
    population – expect oversight to be open, transparent, and accountable.
  * There is some resistance to the development of Internet resources
    such as TLDs being managed in the public interest.


      Issues

With minimal experience to draw upon, the scope and scale of issues 
requiring oversight remains an unknown. User experiences will set the 
oversight agenda over the next few years, however, questions such as the 
following will certainly need attention.

bottom-line

  * How much should it cost to buy a .nyc domain name?
  * Should prices be uniform for businesses, nonprofits, individuals,
    etc., or should there be a pricing structure that encourages
    not-for-profit activity in this area?
  * Is the .nyc TLD infrastructure worthy of investment?
  * Must the .nyc TLD be self sufficient?

ownership rights

  * Should some of the 3,000 premium names (.news.nyc, hotels.nyc,
    pizza.nyc, etc) be set aside for distribution by a means other than
    a high bid auction?
  * Should the encouragement of innovative proposals be given preference
    in making premium domain name allocation decisions?
  * Which premium names should have public interest commitments attached
    to their development rights?
  * What are these public interest requirements?
  * Who sets and approves them?
  * What should be the compliance mechanisms?

efficiency

  * Does the city stand behind its TLD?
  * Where does one go to make a complaint about a service or product
    sold by a site using a .nyc domain name?
  * Who assures that complaints are addressed?
  * What monitoring of user registration (nexus) and activation is in
    place and planned?
  * Should the requirements of INTRO. 683-2015
    <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fdoitt%2Fdownloads%2Fpdf%2Ftestimony_for_4_20_technology_hearing.pdf&ei=FKhDVZHkJ4rigwSAu4G4Cg&usg=AFQjCNFLhd9QfI_YjHp7ucjn7WFbGO0_Ug&sig2=dYzqMHfTvKZgo6w8rC1U0g>,
    setting accessibility standards for city government operated
    websites, be required for all .nyc sites?

the public commons

  * How are civicly important domain names to be identified?
  * What usage level constitutes effective use of a civicly important
    domain name?
  * How can the city promote effective use of civicly important domain
    names?
  * What process should be followed to reclaim impotent civicly
    important domain names?
  * Should the city invest in templates to facilitate developing
    websites for categories of domain names, for example, the
    dotNeighborhoods?

policy

  * What are the linkages between the city’s universal broadband policy,
    education, the public access channels, and domain names?
  * How can mom and pop businesses be encouraged to utilize .nyc domain
    names (and the Internet)?
  * Should individual domain name registrants be able to keep their home
    addresses private through some type of proxy service?
  * What pricing, training, and allocation policies will facilitate the
    equitable distribution of .nyc domain names?

education

  * What programs should be used to educate New Yorkers about the
    utility and structure of the .nyc TLD?
  * What awareness and training programs can encourage civil society to
    better utilize the web?
  * How can we encourage a culture that proudly presents and protects
    our city’s internet resources?

optimization

  * Would effective privacy and security features entice more New
    Yorkers to use our city’s TLD?
  * Should we explore “digital city” relations with other TLD cities?
  * Should the city support a “green” policy that encourages .nyc
    websites to use power efficient systems?
  * Should access to .nyc sites be sped up by requiring that DNS servers
    be housed in the city?
  * What levels of transparency access should there be to DNS usage data?

It’s worth reiterating that the .nyc domain was only activated in late 
2014, and the range of issues a city TLD will face is only emerging. 
It’s reasonable to assume that the experiences of city dwellers here, 
and in 30 other cities just activating their TLDs, will help answer 
these questions and bring up others for resolution.

But today there are no direct or dedicated channels for communicating 
with city government about our TLD. Today’s communications options are 
limited, with an email to the mayor or a council member being perhaps 
the most effective.


      Recommendations

City-TLD governance is a complex process requiring a framework, 
operating model, and infrastructure to enable effective oversight and 
relationships between management and users.

With 75,000 domain names sold and new websites being activated every 
day, we need engagement efforts and communication channels that 
facilitate sharing between residents and oversight entities. We need 
these here in the city and we need channels to share issues and best 
practices with the 30 other cities developing their TLDs.

The experts on our city’s TLD are the 8,200,000 residents who are 
purchasing the domain names, making websites, and accessing them. It’s 
time we empower them to shape our city’s TLD. To do so City Hall should 
initiate short and long term governance efforts.

*Long Term *– Looking back to 2001 and the Internet Empowerment 
Resolution that first called for our city to acquire .nyc, Queens 
Community Board 3’s recommendation was that the Commission on Public 
information and Communication 
<http://datanyc.org/nycgov/commission-on-public-information-and-communication/> 
(COPIC) be .nyc’s oversight entity. That still sounds like a reasonable 
approach.

But COPIC needs funding, staffing, and a legislative fix. The Public 
Advocate, Trish James, has applied for funding, and staffing will follow.

The legislative fix should create a more comprehensive purview of the 
digital city, taking into account the need for universal access, 
processes and programs to facilitate the Internet’s effective use, the 
role (cable’s) public access channels should play in the Internet world, 
as well as the oversight of domain names. Additional public members 
should be placed on COPIC, selected by individual owners of .nyc domain 
names.

The digital revolution’s impact on all aspect of city government’s 
operation should be reflected in .nyc’s planning and development. With 
the similarities of domain names to real estate, we see value in the 
City Planning Commission participating in COPIC reviews. Lessons from 
its ULURP and other public participation processes would aide in 
exploring appropriate uses for our city’s digital land. Additionally, 
CUNY and our other universities should have a say in the review processes.

*Short Term* – The .NYC Community Advisory Board should be 
reconstituted. This interim body was appointed by Mayor Bloomberg and 
strengthened by Mayor de Blasio. But it’s charter ended last December 31 
and nothing has emerged to replacement it.

  * The .nyc Advisory Board had a knowledgeable and active core
    membership that should be reappointed.
  * It should be supported with staff and resources to facilitate broad
    public engagement.
  * The Board’s operation should be open and transparent with channels
    enabling contributions by the public, small businesses, and civil
    society.
  * Channels should be established with other TLD cities experiencing
    the same challenging birth to identify common issues and best practices.

To a far greater degree than the global Internet, New York’s Internet is 
a tangible resource, with its impact seen and felt as we move through 
the city. Let’s assure that tools to enable our residents to effectively 
govern this new force are made available now and for the long term.

In a future post we’ll take a look at the technology and relationships 
that enable the Internet’s global reach and see where and how the city 
might interact there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150504/60fbe77a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150504/60fbe77a/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 May  5 00:36:25 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 00:36:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <EC86BC42-F71A-4EA5-A387-AE3F751C164F@eff.org>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
	<21825.4993.483415.349770@world.std.com>
	<EC86BC42-F71A-4EA5-A387-AE3F751C164F@eff.org>
Message-ID: <21832.18633.516059.752250@world.std.com>


(out of town, catching up...)

I was thinking of something much broader than ICANN. Something more
like global internet governance. To me ICANN is important, they manage
names and numbers, in much the same way the public works dept is
important. If the latter doesn't function properly millions die of
cholera. That's very important but doesn't quite put one at the center
of authority.

ICANN does have a multi-stakeholder structure of sorts but its flaws
are well-documented. I don't think we would want to model a more
general internet governance on their experience. It wasn't a failure
by any means, but its processes are...well...work well enough I
suppose for its relatively narrow focus (running names and numbers.)
One needn't develop an electoral college or internal parliamentary to
bid contracts on sewer pipes either. The work is largely
administrative and should merely bear up to transparency and
accountability.

So to restate, in a larger internet governance context would EFF -- or
someone very like EFF if that's more comfortable, FGG -- be an
enfranchised stakeholder?

If so how did that happen? Who are its peers?

  -b

On April 30, 2015 at 15:06 jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) wrote:
 > On Apr 29, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
 > > 
 > > 
 > > Ok, let's try this then:
 > > 
 > > Is EFF a stakeholder?
 > > 
 > > I don't mean in some hand-wavey feel-good "EVERYBODY is a
 > > STAKEHOLDER!" way.
 > > 
 > > I mean are they enfranchisable?
 > > 
 > > Say the ICANN proposal for the IANA transition is in its final form
 > > and looking for a formal vote of confidence.
 > > 
 > > A yes vote would make it happen, a no vote would likely send it back
 > > for several months of re-write. This is not just a feel-good poll.
 > > 
 > > The stakeholders are assembled and ready to be counted.
 > > 
 > > Is EFF one of them?
 > 
 > If EFF chooses to participate at ICANN (which it generally doesn't, though I realize this is a hypothetical), then it is going to be through the stakeholder structures that have been developed for doing that, such as the NPOC within the NCSG of the GNSO.[0]  I make no claims here about how legitimate or effective those particular structures are.
 > 
 > [0] Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency within the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
 > 
 > -- 
 > Jeremy Malcolm
 > Senior Global Policy Analyst
 > Electronic Frontier Foundation
 > https://eff.org
 > jmalcolm at eff.org
 > 
 > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
 > 
 > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
 > 
 > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
 > 
 > PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
 > OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
 > 
 > Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
 > https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
 > 

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

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

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

From bzs at world.std.com  Tue May  5 00:53:50 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 00:53:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-SMTE_6n7ZOt4ykiWArA4V8NW0q7_C_uNDL5e877XudA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
	<1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
	<21825.7414.6268.54541@world.std.com>
	<CACTo+v-SMTE_6n7ZOt4ykiWArA4V8NW0q7_C_uNDL5e877XudA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21832.19678.687020.577885@world.std.com>


inline...

On May 1, 2015 at 08:41 kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) wrote:
 > And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is
 > enfranchisable and do they get enfranchised? - there is the question of who
 > is listened to? Are the stakeholders equally listened to or are some "more
 > equally" listened to than others? [1] In my experience, assuming we have
 > clear answers to Barry's great questions, this remains a persistent
 > challenge in MS processes where people consistently tend to listen more
 > other people they are culturally acquainted with. At times the risk of a MS
 > setting turning into a club is palpable.

Thank you. Yes, that is exactly my concern also. Hence some desire
formalize enfranchisement, a long haul no doubt.

 > On Apr 29, 2015 6:04 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
 > >
 > > Or by whatever the process for approving decisions is, voting is to
 > > some extent a metaphor for any reasonably inclusive and transparent
 > > approval process.
 > 
 > Right! It has been my impression MS-ism tends to be skeptical about voting
 > per se and tends to prefer consensus processes not formally based on a
 > proper voting as known so far in demonstratic processes. One may understand
 > why, although one may or may not agree. Such voting requires well defined
 > boundaries ahead of time - the boundaries of the polity, of the
 > enfranchised, so far all individuals notwithstanding the opinion of the
 > current US Supreme Court - meaning those boundaries are closed at least at
 > some point. Once those boundaries are defined and implemented, it is a 'one
 > person one vote' business, which MS-ism does not find all that friendly.
 > 
 > Or am I mistaken in my reading?

Mostly addressing [1] below: Consensus works in technical contexts
because the issues can usually be reduced to more objective measures,
or even reduced to no real difference in value: Shall we put a 4 or a
5 in each packet to indicate this protocol version?

I do understand that even such minor issues can become very
contentious particularly when vendors may have such large monied
interests in seemingly "Endian" differences:

  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/endian

When resources are at stake consensus may not be an option.

 > /Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
 > 
 > [1] Please set aside cases such as IETF. We are discussing broader policies
 > which may impact potentially everyone and in which potentially anyone could
 > be involved, not just processes whereby technical artifacts are designed or
 > modified, issues requiring specialized knowledge which cannot be acquired
 > in a day or two of preparation by any (basicly) literate individual.
 > <p dir="ltr">And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is enfranchisable and do they get enfranchised? - there is the question of who is listened to? Are the stakeholders equally listened to or are some &quot;more equally&quot; listened to than others? [1] In my experience, assuming we have clear answers to Barry&#39;s great questions, this remains a persistent challenge in MS processes where people consistently tend to listen more other people they are culturally acquainted with. At times the risk of a MS setting turning into a club is palpable.</p>
 > <p dir="ltr">On Apr 29, 2015 6:04 PM, &quot;Barry Shein&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bzs at world.std.com">bzs at world.std.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
 > &gt;<br>
 > &gt; Or by whatever the process for approving decisions is, voting is to<br>
 > &gt; some extent a metaphor for any reasonably inclusive and transparent<br>
 > &gt; approval process.</p>
 > <p dir="ltr">Right! It has been my impression MS-ism tends to be skeptical about voting per se and tends to prefer consensus processes not formally based on a proper voting as known so far in demonstratic processes. One may understand why, although one may or may not agree. Such voting requires well defined boundaries ahead of time - the boundaries of the polity, of the enfranchised, so far all individuals notwithstanding the opinion of the current US Supreme Court - meaning those boundaries are closed at least at some point. Once those boundaries are defined and implemented, it is a &#39;one person one vote&#39; business, which MS-ism does not find all that friendly.</p>
 > <p dir="ltr">Or am I mistaken in my reading?</p>
 > <p dir="ltr">/Brought to you by Mawaki&#39;s droid agent</p>
 > <p dir="ltr">[1] Please set aside cases such as IETF. We are discussing broader policies which may impact potentially everyone and in which potentially anyone could be involved, not just processes whereby technical artifacts are designed or modified, issues requiring specialized knowledge which cannot be acquired in a day or two of preparation by any (basicly) literate individual.<br>
 > </p>

   -b

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 May  5 00:54:55 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 00:54:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <29D54740-2827-4416-9B7E-8173F8A5B629@hserus.net>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
	<1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
	<21825.7414.6268.54541@world.std.com>
	<CACTo+v-SMTE_6n7ZOt4ykiWArA4V8NW0q7_C_uNDL5e877XudA@mail.gmail.com>
	<29D54740-2827-4416-9B7E-8173F8A5B629@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <21832.19743.365590.205481@world.std.com>


On May 1, 2015 at 14:31 suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote:
 > Add a single extra question - who is / are the targets of active attempts to disenfranchise them from a process?

I agree, in order to be thrown out of a room one must first get in.

  -b

 > > On 01-May-2015, at 2:11 pm, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
 > > 
 > > And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is enfranchisable and do they get enfranchised? - there is the question of who is listened to? Are the stakeholders equally listened to or are some "more equally" listened to than others? [1] In my experience, assuming we have clear answers to Barry's great questions, this remains a persistent challenge in MS processes where people consistently tend to listen more other people they are culturally acquainted with. At times the risk of a MS setting turning into a club is palpable.
 > > 
 > > 
 > 
 > <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Add a single extra question - who is / are the targets of active attempts to disenfranchise them from a process?<div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 01-May-2015, at 2:11 pm, Mawaki Chango &lt;<a href="mailto:kichango at gmail.com" class="">kichango at gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><p dir="ltr" style="font-family: GillSans; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is enfranchisable and do they get enfranchised? - there is the question of who is listened to? Are the stakeholders equally listened to or are some "more equally" listened to than others? [1] In my experience, assuming we have clear answers to Barry's great questions, this remains a persistent challenge in MS processes where people consistently tend to listen more other people they are culturally acquainted with. At times the risk of a MS setting turning into a club is palpable.</p><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bzs at world.std.com  Tue May  5 01:10:19 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 01:10:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBxan3WpTZS_5rOvhetfF-vc6-UbdpRoGEY-PhCw+GTAaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
	<1CA2B997-5A60-4A5D-B4B8-45AD29B54703@gmail.com>
	<21825.7414.6268.54541@world.std.com>
	<CAJkfFBxan3WpTZS_5rOvhetfF-vc6-UbdpRoGEY-PhCw+GTAaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21832.20667.254207.197791@world.std.com>


On May 1, 2015 at 05:58 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) wrote:
 > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
 > >
 > > FWIW, the usual characterization of Tyranny of the Majority is 51%
 > > voting to kill the other 49%.
 > 
 > 
 > "Tyranny of the majority" is directly related to the problem of how
 > minorities' interests are guarded.  It's not about a bare majority
 > overtaking nearly the other half.  The founders in the US, both at
 > state level and federal, were very concerned about government running
 > out of control, including a kind of mob rule in legislatures.   I
 > don't think anyone in this thread is referencing the term very well,
 > but for instance checks and balances function in part as checks on
 > simple majoritarianism (like bicameralism, the notion of a higher
 > house, processes that balance representation of states versus
 > populations such that more populous states like California and Texas
 > don't have inordinate influence, the electoral college based on the
 > structure of representation in the legislature, federalism, tripartite
 > government with judicial review, fundamental rights, etc.).
 > Constitutions put in lots of features to operate as checks on the
 > government getting out of control, and indeed minorities have little
 > else to rely on besides these structural elements of constitutions to
 > guard their interests.  Court cases on discrimination are often about
 > this sort of issue.

Once rights which supercede ordinary legislative action are
established one needs a judiciary or equivalent with authority to
declare such inappropriate legislative or electorate action null and
void.

I really don't see where a judicial structure exists in what I've seen
of multistakeholderism other than by fiat -- let's form this
three-member panel and give them review authority -- or entirely
external to the processes -- let's see what a (state or federal) court
or govt agency with jurisdiction says.

For example look at ICANN's appeal to Canada's Office of Consumer
Affairs and the US's Federal Trade Commission for resolution of .SUCKS:

    http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150409_icann_asks_federal_trade_commission_if_suck_is_violating_any_laws/

or

   http://tinyurl.com/pzujkbj

  -b

 > 
 > 
 > Seth
 > 
 > 
 > > The mitigation is clear boundaries on what can and cannot be voted on
 > > generally referred to as "rights", you cannot violate the following
 > > list of rights with a vote...(list, plus evolved case law).
 > >
 > > There's generally some way to modify the list usually involving voting
 > > but one hopes it requires an inherently difficult process, not a
 > > simple up/down vote. A term is "hysteresis" -- once rights have been
 > > laid down then by design it should be difficult to remove or limit
 > > them.
 > >
 > > This is government 101 perhaps but it's also not been addressed in any
 > > multistakeholder systems I've seen except perhaps through by-laws of a
 > > corporation which is significant!
 > >
 > > But to my mind one can't get to what can be voted on without first
 > > having some idea of who can vote. These limitations have to be laid
 > > out and approved.
 > >
 > > Or by whatever the process for approving decisions is, voting is to
 > > some extent a metaphor for any reasonably inclusive and transparent
 > > approval process. Humming comes to mind:
 > >
 > >      https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
 > >
 > > --
 > >         -Barry Shein
 > >
 > > The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
 > > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
 > > Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
 > >
 > >
 > > ____________________________________________________________
 > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
 > >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
 > > To be removed from the list, visit:
 > >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
 > >
 > > For all other list information and functions, see:
 > >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
 > > To edit your 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 isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue May  5 08:20:33 2015
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 17:50:33 +0530
Subject: [governance] ICANN Accountability draft proposal posted for public
 comments
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0FAnVvoTCOCCiBmFHPCGwP5y4=XhFUfLJg5vyMHTSq4Gw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello

Public Comments open on the CCWG Accountability draft proposal

​
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en


Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150505/bc2fd3e8/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 May  5 14:19:52 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 14:19:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Facebook=E2=80=99s_Internet=2Eorg_Isn?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99t_the_Internet=2C_It=E2=80=99s_Facebooknet?=
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxhf8fBt+_gM_G90BmfABWBvkX0hmGsjNg_F5bcD4g=5w@mail.gmail.com>

Just gets a lot right:

Facebook’s Internet.org Isn’t the Internet, It’s Facebooknet
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/opinion-internet-org-facebooknet/


Seth

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 May  5 14:39:08 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 14:39:08 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=5Bbestbits=5D_Facebook=E2=80=99s_Inte?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?rnet=2Eorg_Isn=E2=80=99t_the_Internet=2C_It=E2=80=99s_Facebookn?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?et?=
In-Reply-To: <CAFYVRRSp=Rz8F1A0qLbLNnEG7hZ5Vydmo-zUcZCBv0t=tdCSOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFBxhf8fBt+_gM_G90BmfABWBvkX0hmGsjNg_F5bcD4g=5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFYVRRSp=Rz8F1A0qLbLNnEG7hZ5Vydmo-zUcZCBv0t=tdCSOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFByWx9jz+oV0doB=t1rUgcvtdj+UV-gHgYztw2HAi_CKwA@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, this is great progress.

If all you've got is a dominant intranet (like a Comcast or Verizon
IncumbentNet) and no
ready access to the infrastructure to become a peer in the network
yourself, then you're not talking about a network of networks in the
first place.  Facebook is taking advantage of an IncumbentNet enabling
environment to put across a huge con job.  The whole zero rating thing
is stuck in that bogus frame.

You're really close to the Internet Distinction line.  :-)


Seth

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Josh Levy <josh at accessnow.org> wrote:
> Thanks for sharing Seth.
>
> We're at a crossroads on this issue, and we have a real opportunity for the
> global community of Net Neutrality advocates to make a strong, public
> statement of support for real Net Neutrality, and to push back against
> Zuckerberg's assertions.
>
> We're working on a draft of an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg right now -
> would others be interested in such a tactic?
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Just gets a lot right:
>>
>> Facebook’s Internet.org Isn’t the Internet, It’s Facebooknet
>> http://www.wired.com/2015/05/opinion-internet-org-facebooknet/
>>
>>
>> Seth
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> Josh Levy
> Advocacy Director
> Access | accessnow.org
>
> tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy
> PGP: 0x84C9F275
> Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275
>
> Join the Access team - we're hiring!
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 May  5 18:13:57 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 18:13:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <55466F53.7010502@cavebear.com>
References: <FFDC395D-AB73-446E-9764-2C8F49B77578@eff.org>
	<553EEC57.60100@cavebear.com>
	<553FF87E.8010505@eff.org>
	<21825.4993.483415.349770@world.std.com>
	<55466F53.7010502@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <21833.16549.73494.559248@world.std.com>


(I'll top-post)

It's a complex problem. In a democratic or representative democracy we
can trace authority back to individuals. Plus or minus foundational
limitations such as constitutions, power of courts, and of course just
inefficiencies we can't completely explain -- who voted for parking
meters???

This doesn't preclude the existence of Chambers of Commerce and
similar which only or primarily enfranchise incorporated entities.

I suppose the question is whether we are trying to establish something
more like a government, or something more like a Chamber of Commerce?

Put another way is internet MSism a means for legitimization or just
an advisory body for those entities which have legitimization?

Somewhat in echo of your points the wikipedia page on
"Multistakeholder governance model" has a criticism section which
states this "governance of, by, and for the lobbyists" fear
succinctly.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_governance_model

  -b

On May 3, 2015 at 11:56 karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) wrote:
 > 
 > On 4/29/15 10:23 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
 > > Ok, let's try this then:
 > >
 > > Is EFF a stakeholder?
 > No.   No thing that exists merely as an abstraction of law or accounting 
 > ought to be given power in the making of decisions.
 > 
 > EFF employs many human people who would all be proper holders of a 
 > franchise to participate in the making of whatever decision is to be 
 > made.  Each of whom would be free to follow the EFF position or not.
 > 
 > EFF as an organization would, of course, be able to provide its 
 > expertise - as would any other organization from the NRA to the ITU to 
 > Boeing to Joe's Bar and Grill - but it would merely be proffered advice 
 > and would have no weight in the making of decisions beyond its power to 
 > persuade those (individual humans) or a human who has been designated by 
 > those people to act on their behalf, in other words a designated 
 > representative.
 > 
 > I am amused by how easy it is to corrupt stakeholder systems.  Under 
 > ICANN's rubric I have many hats in which I am a "stakeholder" and get to 
 > put my replicated thumb multiple times onto the scale of decision.  I 
 > am, of course, a user of the internet, I own and control several 
 > for-profit corporate entities, I participate in several non-profit 
 > organizations, I hold domain names and IP addresses from before the era 
 > of ICANN and the RIRs, I've authored full internet standards, I own 
 > several trademarks and many copyrights and even some patents, I'm a 
 > citizen of more than one country, and I am also an attorney (both 
 > California and US Federal).
 > 
 > So under a system of stakeholders I get more places to stand and try to 
 > project my influence than the average internet user.   That, of course, 
 > doesn't mean that I get my way - I tend to espouse rather liberal 
 > human-over-corporation values - which clearly face huge mountains of 
 > opposition.  But there are others who are far more capable and 
 > manipulative than I am, and have far more resources, money, and time.  
 > Consider the trademark protection lobby - they are quite well funded, 
 > well focused, and under the ICANN system they get, and use, multiple 
 > "stakeholder" seats (as intellectual property interests, as business 
 > interests, via their exaggerated influence in governments, and via the 
 > "at large").
 > 
 > When one recognizes mental abstractions - such as the collection known 
 > as EFF or the collection known as Verizon - to have the piece of the 
 > power to make decisions then that reduces the power of humans.  It's a 
 > zero-sum game - the more we give to legal fictions, such as corporations 
 > or trade groups, then the less there is for individual people.
 > 
 > I am reminded of some of the mud that was thrown at the ICANN elections 
 > in year 2000: that some countries and large corporations were trying to 
 > influence their employees to vote in certain ways, and that as a 
 > consequence it was asserted that those elections were tainted.  Yet 
 > under the stakeholder system those same countries and corporations would 
 > get actual power, actual votes - why care about the opinions of mere 
 > people when the CEO can decide what is good for them?
 > 
 >              --karl--
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ____________________________________________________________
 > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
 >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
 > To be removed from the list, visit:
 >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
 > 
 > For all other list information and functions, see:
 >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
 > To edit your 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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Tue May  5 22:35:04 2015
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru)
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 08:05:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] NN and zero rating in India
Message-ID: <55497DD8.5050504@ITforChange.net>

http://m.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/telecom-and-it-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-against-net-neutrality/article7173717.ece/

Coming out in support of net neutrality, Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar 
Prasad on Tuesday said the government is committed to keeping Internet 
accessible and available to all without discrimination.

“Government stands for ensuring non-discriminatory access to Internet 
for all citizens of the country,” he said while replying to calling 
attention motion on net neutrality in Rajya Sabha. Net Neutrality is the 
principle that service providers should treat all data on the internet 
equally, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, 
site, platform, or application. The government, Mr Prasad said, agrees 
with the viewpoint that blocking and deliberate slowing down/speeding up 
of lawful content on Internet should not be allowed and customers should 
have unrestricted access to all lawful content on internet. He, however, 
said the implications of net neutrality would need detailed expert 
examination with regards to traffic management, national security, 
integrity of network and investment in infrastructure.

While the debate on Net Neutrality has been on at the global level for a 
long time, in India it was triggered when country’s largest operator 
Airtel announced plans to charge customers for VoIP services, such as 
Skype and Viber. Airtel announced another initiative Airtel Zero, which 
too received a lot of flak as this was seen as violating Net Neutrality. 
The debate gained national momentum when telecom regulator TRAI came out 
with consultation paper inviting user comments on the subject. Over a 
million responses were received by the regulator in support of net 
neutrality. Mr Prasad said, “While TRAI has the power to regulate tariff 
and quality of service, its regulations are subject to the overall 
public policy of the government. On other issues, TRAI can make 
recommendations and final decision rests with government.” The Minister 
said a committee constituted with the mandate to recommend overall 
policy and technical responses to net neutrality is expected to summit 
its report by month end. Based on the panel’s recommendation, the 
government will take a structured view on the way forward, he added.

-- 
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
Director, IT for Change
In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890
http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum

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

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Wed May  6 02:32:02 2015
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 06:32:02 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Facebook's Internet.org Isn't the
 Internet, It's Facebooknet
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFByWx9jz+oV0doB=t1rUgcvtdj+UV-gHgYztw2HAi_CKwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFBxhf8fBt+_gM_G90BmfABWBvkX0hmGsjNg_F5bcD4g=5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFYVRRSp=Rz8F1A0qLbLNnEG7hZ5Vydmo-zUcZCBv0t=tdCSOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJkfFByWx9jz+oV0doB=t1rUgcvtdj+UV-gHgYztw2HAi_CKwA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8nGUwXYE0OYiKJ9NKUddvQ+Sfu4uEZNVQUoj1xjzeD1g@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for raising awareness and sharing.

Probably a minor point in the grand scheme of things: What's wrong with
Facebook and security when it comes to user data and traffic? Remember, it
took them some time and polemic before we were able to add that 's' to http?

/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
On May 5, 2015 6:39 PM, "Seth Johnson" <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, this is great progress.
>
> If all you've got is a dominant intranet (like a Comcast or Verizon
> IncumbentNet) and no
> ready access to the infrastructure to become a peer in the network
> yourself, then you're not talking about a network of networks in the
> first place.  Facebook is taking advantage of an IncumbentNet enabling
> environment to put across a huge con job.  The whole zero rating thing
> is stuck in that bogus frame.
>
> You're really close to the Internet Distinction line.  :-)
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Josh Levy <josh at accessnow.org> wrote:
> > Thanks for sharing Seth.
> >
> > We're at a crossroads on this issue, and we have a real opportunity for
> the
> > global community of Net Neutrality advocates to make a strong, public
> > statement of support for real Net Neutrality, and to push back against
> > Zuckerberg's assertions.
> >
> > We're working on a draft of an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg right now -
> > would others be interested in such a tactic?
> >
> > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Just gets a lot right:
> >>
> >> Facebook's Internet.org Isn't the Internet, It's Facebooknet
> >> http://www.wired.com/2015/05/opinion-internet-org-facebooknet/
> >>
> >>
> >> Seth
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Josh Levy
> > Advocacy Director
> > Access | accessnow.org
> >
> > tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy
> > PGP: 0x84C9F275
> > Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275
> >
> > Join the Access team - we're hiring!
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150506/0789c66d/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  Wed May  6 05:29:19 2015
From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo))
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 10:29:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4714RRAw7U0D8B_rpwSF3b2aTqZRpSDzS_DR1tNuiuBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1430904559.88970.YahooMailIosMobile@web28705.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150506/946b0047/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com  Wed May  6 05:41:19 2015
From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 10:41:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <1430904559.88970.YahooMailIosMobile@web28705.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <CAMz5XN4714RRAw7U0D8B_rpwSF3b2aTqZRpSDzS_DR1tNuiuBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1430904559.88970.YahooMailIosMobile@web28705.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAPcSPKUwe5Wtai-DME4bTz-tm1m666ZK_iwYMGrdDUn5fQCwKA@mail.gmail.com>

hello
I believe also. However, we made the remarks at the Den Haag assessment
session.
Soon, it will be taken into account all these observations.

2015-05-06 10:29 GMT+01:00 Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo) <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr>:

> Thanks De,
> I agree with your point. For the Hague meeting, i had to search on Twitter
> in order to get to the livestream. The link was not widely shared time
> before the meeting.
>
> What i also notice is that the RP details are shared at last minute,
> sometimes, you get them while the meeting just ended (for short ones). It
> is good the MAG is working hard on that and we can expect some improvements
> going forwards.
>
> Thanks for raisong this issue,
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone <https://yho.com/footer0>
>
> At 21 avr. 2015 17:34:46, Deirdre Williams<'williams.deirdre at gmail.com'>
> wrote:
> Dear Arsene,
> It used to be (my observation) that meetings concerning the internet had a
> default position of trying to make their proceedings accessible online - if
> you are discussing a communication tool it seems good sense also to use it.
> However recently (again my observation) this practice has become less
> common. The ITU, the IGF and ICANN do their best within their financial
> capabilities, some institutions having larger budgets than others.
> "[I]nternational IG meetings" is something of an awkward construct since
> the majority of IG meetings are international in nature - in their speakers
> and/or their participants.
>
> I checked (not as carefully as I might have done - my non-virtual life is
> quite busy at the moment) for remote access to the meeting in the Hague.
> Judith says that remote access was available, but I would propose that the
> links were rather less easy to find than is usual with a meeting of that
> size. Recently I became aware of a meeting to be held in Malta at the end
> of the month. I was interested to attend so asked about remote
> participation. I was told that they were trying but the budget probably
> wouldn't stretch so far.
> I hope this clarifies my original message.
>
> I agree with Daniel, David and Michael - participation is crucially
> important, and in the context of the internet should NOT be measured in
> terms of physical presence.
>
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
> On 21 April 2015 at 09:39, Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo) <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi De,
>> Trying to understand your point...
>> Do you mean there is less remote participation possibilities offered for
>> international IG meetings?
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying for me,
>> A
>> *------------------------------------------------------*
>> *Arsène Tungali,*
>> Co-founder and Executive Director, Rudi International
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org/>
>> Founder, Mabingwa Forum <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/>
>>
>> Work email: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
>> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/arsenebaguma> - Twitter
>> <http://twitter.com/arsenebaguma> - LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/arsene-tungali/40/825/344/>
>> Internet Governance - Blogger - ISOC Member - ICANN Fellow - IGF Fellow.
>> Democratic Republic of Congo
>>
>>
>>
>>   Le Mardi 21 avril 2015 15h32, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> While I am sure we all agree with the sentiment - and I am certain that
>> I’m relatively spoiled as I attend anything in Geneva in person - it would
>> be helpful to see some examples of meetings where this is a problem, and
>> especially, where annual meetings have decreased remote participation
>> options.
>>
>> > On 21 Apr 2015, at 05:15, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is a serious issue. We strongly need to encourage and expand
>> remote participation, not decrease it.
>> >
>> > Remote participation in the form of webcasts and assigned remote
>> participation people to ask questions on behalf of remote participants is a
>> bare minimum. Improving remote participation by whatever means - mechanisms
>> such as properly staffed remote hubs, screens so that remote participant
>> comments are visible to those in the room, enabling telepresence panellist
>> participation, etc spring to mind - should be the what we are aiming for,
>> not just maintaining the minimal levels of participation.
>> >
>> > While multi-stakeholder processes may be much more open than those
>> gatekeepered by governments, they will remain the province of a relatively
>> small elite unless we can ensure that physical travel is not a necessity
>> for participation. I think we currently do this OK for working group style
>> processes, we don’t do it at all well for higher level processes.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 8:04 am, Deirdre Williams <
>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Colleagues,
>> >> During the discussion of recent internet governance related meetings I
>> don't remember seeing any comments about the steady erosion of remote
>> participation or even webcasts.
>> >> Considering the area being discussed by these meetings this seems to
>> me to be a very serious loss.
>> >> How do others feel?
>> >> Deirdre
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>
>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>
>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
*SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN*

*COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC*

*ICANN/AFRALO Member*
*ISOC Member*
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150506/bc005e6b/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 May  7 05:46:59 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 15:16:59 +0530
Subject: [governance] Review of book on 'Political economy of Internet
 freedom'
Message-ID: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net>

http://boundary2.org/2015/04/29/dissecting-the-internet-freedom-agenda/

*A**review by Richard Hill of*
****

/*The Real Cyber War: The Political Economy of Internet Freedom*/*
 **by ***Shawn M. Powers and Michael Jablonski**

**  **
 

Both radical civil society organizations
<http://www.justnetcoalition.org/> and mainstream
<http://www.internetsociety.org/> defenders of the status quo agree that
the free and open Internet is threatened: see for example the Delhi
Declaration <http://www.justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration>, Bob
Hinden’s 2014 Year End Thoughts
<http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/institutional/2014/12/year-end-thoughts>,
and Kathy Brown’s March 2015 statement
<http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/03/connecting-dots-options-future-action>
at a UNESCO conference. The threats include government censorship and
mass surveillance, but also the failure of governments to control
rampant industry concentration and commercial exploitation of personal
data, which increasingly takes the form of providing “free” services in
exchange for personal information that is resold at a profit, or used to
provide targeted advertising, also at a profit.

In /Digital Disconnect
<http://boundary2.org/2015/04/08/the-internet-vs-democracy/>/, Robert
McChesney has explained how the Internet, which was supposed to be a
force for the improvement of human rights and living conditions, has
been used to erode privacy and to increase the concentration of economic
power, to the point where it is becoming a threat to democracy
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/03/11/no-democracy-is-not-excess-baggage/>. In
/Digital Depression
<http://boundary2.org/2014/12/03/internet-freedom-digital-empire/>/, Dan
Schiller has documented how US policies regarding the Internet have
favored its geo-economic and geo-political goals, in particular the
interests of its large private companies that dominate the information
and communications technology (ICT) sector worldwide.

Shawn M. Powers <http://gsu.academia.edu/smp> and Michael Jablonski
<http://gsu.academia.edu/MichaelJablonski>’s seminal new book /The Real
Cyber War/
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/025208070X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=025208070X&linkCode=as2&tag=uncomputing-20&linkId=NZ23PH2SQQTRGQAY>
takes us further down the road of understanding what went wrong, and
what might be done to correct the situation. Powers, an assistant
professor at Georgia State University, specializes in international
political communication, with particular attention to the geopolitics of
information and information technologies. Jablonski is an attorney and
presidential fellow, also at Georgia State.

There is a vast literature on internet governance (see for example the
bibliography in Radu, Chenou, and Weber, eds., /The Evolution of Global
Internet Governance
<https://www.schulthess.com/buchshop/detail/ISBN-9783725569083/Radu-Roxana-Editeur-Chenou-Jean-Marie-Editeur-Weber-Rolf-H.-Editeur/The-Evolution-of-Global-Internet-Governance>/),
but much of it is ideological and normative: the author espouses a
certain point of view, explains why that point of view is good, and
proposes actions that would lead to the author’s desired outcome (a good
example is Milton Mueller’s well researched but utopian /Networks and
States
<http://www.amazon.com/Networks-States-Governance-Information-Revolution/dp/0262518570>/).
There is nothing wrong with that approach: on the contrary, such
advocacy is necessary and welcome.

But a more detached analytical approach is also needed, and Powers and
Jablonski provide exactly that. Their objective is to help us understand
(citing from p. 19 of the paperback edition) “why states pursue the
policies they do”. The book “focuses centrally on understanding the
numerous ways in which power and control are exerted in cyberspace” (p. 19).

Starting from the rather obvious premise that states compete to shape
international policies that favor their interests, and using the
framework of political economy, the authors outline the geopolitical
stakes and show how questions of power
<http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/03_tni_state-of-power-2015_the_true_stakes_of_internet_governance-1.pdf>,
and not human rights
<http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/cover07.htm>, are the
real drivers of much of the debate about Internet governance. They show
how the United States has deliberately used a human rights discourse to
promote policies that further its geo-economic and geo-political
interests. And how it has used subsidies and government contracts to
help its private companies to acquire or maintain dominant positions in
much of the ICT sector.

Jacob Silverman has decried
<http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/crowdsourcing-scam> the “the misguided
belief that once power is arrogated away from doddering governmental
institutions, it will somehow find itself in the hands of ordinary
people”. Powers and Jablonski dissect the mechanisms by which vibrant
government institutions deliberately transferred power to US
corporations in order to further US geo-economical and geo-political goals.

In particular, they show how a “freedom to connect” narrative is used by
the USA to attempt to transform information and personal data into
commercial commodities that should be subject to free trade. Yet all
states (including the US) regulate, at least to some extent, the flow of
information within and across their borders. If information is the “new
oil” of our times, then it is not surprising that states wish to shape
the production and flow of information in ways that favor their
interests. Thus it is not surprising that states such as China, India,
and Russia have started to assert sovereign rights to control some
aspect of the production and flow of information within their borders,
and that European Union courts have made decisions on the basis of
European law that affect global information flows and access.

As the authors put the matter (p. 6): “the [US] doctrine of internet
freedom … is the realization of a broader [US] strategy promoting a
particular conception of networked communication that depends on
American companies …, supports Western norms …, and promotes Western
products.” (I would personally say that it actually supports US norms
and US products and services.) As the authors point out, one can ask (p.
11): “If states have a right to control the types of people allowed into
their territory (immigration), and how its money is exchanged with
foreign banks, then why don’t they have a right to control information
flows from foreign actors?”

To be sure, any such controls would have to comply with international
human rights law. But the current US policies go much further, implying
that those human rights laws must be implemented in accordance with the
US interpretation, meaning few restrictions on freedom of speech, weak
protection
<http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Privacy/United%20States.pdf> of
privacy, and ever stricter
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/04/06/the-shaky-rationale-for-tpps-copyright-term/>
protection for intellectual property. As Powers and Jablonski point out
(p. 31), the US does not hesitate to promote restrictions on information
flows when that promotes its goals.

Again, the authors do not make value judgments: they explain in Chapter
1 how the US deliberately attempts to shape (to a large extent
successfully
<http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/internet-governance-the-new-great-game/>)
international policies, so that both actions and inactions serve its
interests and those of the large corporations that increasingly
influence US policies.

The authors then explain how the US military-industrial complex has
morphed into an information-industrial complex, with deleterious
consequences for both industry and government, consequences such as
“weakened oversight, accountability, and industry vitality and
competitiveness”(p. 23) that create risks for society and democracy. As
the authors say, the shift “from adversarial to cooperative
and/laissez-faire/ rule making is a keystone moment in the rise of the
information-industrial complex” (p. 61).

As a specific example, they focus on Google, showing how it (largely
successfully) aims to control and dominate all aspects of the data
market, from production, through extraction, refinement, infrastructure
and demand. A chapter is devoted to the economics of internet
connectivity, showing how US internet policy is basically about getting
the largest number of people online, so that US companies can extract
ever greater profits from the resulting data flows. They show how the
network effects, economies of scale, and externalities that are
fundamental features of the internet favor first-movers, which are
mostly US companies.

The remedy to such situations is well known: government intervention:
widely accepted regarding air transport, road transport,
pharmaceuticals, etc., and yet unthinkable for many regarding the
internet. But why? As the authors put the matter (p. 24): “While
heavy-handed government controls over the internet should be resisted,
so should a system whereby internet connectivity requires the systematic
transfer of wealth from the developing world to the developed.” But
freedom of information is put forward to justify specific economic
practices which would not be easy to justify otherwise, for example “no
government taxes companies for data extraction or for data
imports/exports, both of which are heavily regulated aspects of markets
exchanging other valuable commodities”(p. 97).

The authors show in detail how the so-called internet multi-stakeholder
<https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/democracy-or-multi-stakeholderism-competing-models-of-governance/>
model of governance is dominated by insiders and used “under the veil of
consensus’” (p. 136) to further US policies and corporations. A chapter
is devoted to explaining how all states control, at least to some
extent, information flows within their territories, and presents
detailed studies of how four states (China, Egypt, Iran and the USA)
have addressed the challenges of maintaining political control while
respecting (or not) freedom of speech. The authors then turn to the very
current topic of mass surveillance, and its relation to anonymity,
showing how, when the US presents the internet and “freedom to connect”
as analogous to public speech and town halls, it is deliberately arguing
against anonymity and against privacy – and this of course in order to
avoid restrictions on its mass surveillance activities.

Thus the authors posit that there are tensions between the US call for
“internet freedom” and other states’ calls
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/11/05/what-is-happening-at-the-itu-plenipotentiary-conference/>
for “information sovereignty”, and analyze the 2012 World Conference on
International Telecommunications
<http://www.amazon.com/The-International-Telecommunication-Regulations-Internet/dp/3642454151>
from that point of view.

Not surprisingly, the authors conclude that international cooperation,
recognizing the legitimate aspirations of all the world’s peoples, is
the only proper way forward. As the authors put the matter (p. 206):
“Activists and defenders of the original vision of the Web as a ‘fair
and humane’ cyber-civilization need to avoid lofty ‘internet freedom’
declarations and instead champion specific reforms required to protect
the values and practices they hold dear.” And it is with that in mind,
as a counterweight to US and US-based corporate power, that a group of
civil society organizations have launched the Internet Social Forum
<http://internetsocialforum.net/?q=Tunis_Call_for_a_Peoples_Internet>.

Anybody who is seriously interested in the evolution of internet
governance and its impact on society and democracy will enjoy reading
this well researched book and its clear exposition of key facts. One can
only hope that the Council of Europe will heed Powers and Jablonski’s
advice and avoid adopting more resolutions such as the recent
recommendation to member states by the EU Committee of Ministers
<https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2306649>, which merely pander to the
US discourse and US power that Powers and Jablonski describe so aptly.
And one can fondly hope that this book will help to inspire a change in
course that will restore the internet to what it might become (and what
many thought it was supposed to be): an engine for democracy and social
and economic progress, justice, and equity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150507/2a3cdf0b/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  Thu May  7 08:00:21 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 14:00:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fnancial economy of Internet freedom [was Political
 economy  ....]
In-Reply-To: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net>
References: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E1YqMfx-0004b4-AO@igcaucus.org>

At 11:46 07/05/2015, parminder wrote:
><http://boundary2.org/2015/04/29/dissecting-the-internet-freedom-agenda/>http://boundary2.org/2015/04/29/dissecting-the-internet-freedom-agenda/

Seems interesting. But what I am interested in first in in dissecting 
the financing of the internet freedom activists. Does someone knows 
something trustable to read in that area?

When there is a meeting somewhere in the world, how civil society 
members happen to be there? Who does actually pull the string wallets 
and wallet strings? Who does foot the civil society bill?

Just to know how politically (un)correct should my association be to 
qualify? And where to apply?

jfc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150507/dcc3a48a/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 May  7 10:42:43 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 20:12:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fnancial economy of Internet freedom [was
 Political economy ....]
In-Reply-To: <E1YqMh4-0004NJ-Mb@shire.syminet.com>
References: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net> <E1YqMh4-0004NJ-Mb@shire.syminet.com>
Message-ID: <554B79E3.60908@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 07 May 2015 05:30 PM, Jefsey wrote:
> At 11:46 07/05/2015, parminder wrote:
>> http://boundary2.org/2015/04/29/dissecting-the-internet-freedom-agenda/ 
>
> Seems interesting. But what I am interested in first in in dissecting
> the financing of the internet freedom activists. Does someone knows
> something trustable to read in that area?
>
> When there is a meeting somewhere in the world, how civil society
> members happen to be there? Who does actually pull the string wallets
> and wallet strings? Who does foot the civil society bill?
>
> Just to know how politically (un)correct should my association be to
> qualify? And where to apply?

Yes, JFC, this is perhaps the single most important issue - to try to
understand and perhaps apply corrective pressures on the current IG
related civil society (CS) configuration... But unfortunately the
involved CS is unable to build any kind of consensus on this all
important issue, or to act on it... It is so surprising that a sector
whose raison d'etre is to seek accountability from all those who are
powerful itself refuses to to be held accountable. In fact, raising this
issue in these civil society groups has attracted most vile responses,
as for instance Norbert faced a year or two back.

My organisation has proposed to some key players to set up a online
register of  some kind for CS players in the IG space, on the lines of
EU Transparency Register
http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . But our
discussions went nowhere.

Once, again, I appeal  to key CS groups involved here to join efforts to
develop such an online register. If it is needed for corporate
lobbyists, it is today needed much more for CS groups as well. /*My
organisation is happy to take a lead to be the initial point of contact
for those interested to develop such an initiative. Once there is an
initial mass of groups/ individuals they can together choose an
appropriate governance structure for the initiative. */

So many IG documents to day speak of transparency among stakeholder
groups, but little is done in practice (including the CSTD working group
on IGF improvement, and the much celebrated Net Mundial document). CS
must of course take the lead, and the conscience keeper of governance
processes.

parminder

>
> jfc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150507/2becc539/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 hananeb at diplomacy.edu  Thu May  7 11:04:22 2015
From: hananeb at diplomacy.edu (Hanane Boujemi)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 17:04:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fnancial economy of Internet freedom [was
 Political economy ....]
In-Reply-To: <554B79E3.60908@itforchange.net>
References: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net>
	<E1YqMh4-0004NJ-Mb@shire.syminet.com>
	<554B79E3.60908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAESPhBWfL4EN69JjAFLR=xjPxSDB7VvtT_AKhKZ7MUWr+kPvxw@mail.gmail.com>

I am also very interested in this topic and I came across this article 3
years ago. I've skimmed through it again recently and it is still relevant:

http://nawaat.org/portail/2010/09/17/the-internet-freedom-fallacy-and-the-arab-digital-activism/

Hanane

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:42 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday 07 May 2015 05:30 PM, Jefsey wrote:
>
> At 11:46 07/05/2015, parminder wrote:
>
> http://boundary2.org/2015/04/29/dissecting-the-internet-freedom-agenda/
>
>
> Seems interesting. But what I am interested in first in in dissecting the
> financing of the internet freedom activists. Does someone knows something
> trustable to read in that area?
>
> When there is a meeting somewhere in the world, how civil society members
> happen to be there? Who does actually pull the string wallets and wallet
> strings? Who does foot the civil society bill?
>
> Just to know how politically (un)correct should my association be to
> qualify? And where to apply?
>
>
> Yes, JFC, this is perhaps the single most important issue - to try to
> understand and perhaps apply corrective pressures on the current IG
> related civil society (CS) configuration... But unfortunately the involved
> CS is unable to build any kind of consensus on this all important issue, or
> to act on it... It is so surprising that a sector whose raison d'etre is to
> seek accountability from all those who are powerful itself refuses to to be
> held accountable. In fact, raising this issue in these civil society groups
> has attracted most vile responses, as for instance Norbert faced a year or
> two back.
>
> My organisation has proposed to some key players to set up a online
> register of  some kind for CS players in the IG space, on the lines of EU
> Transparency Register
> http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . But our
> discussions went nowhere.
>
> Once, again, I appeal  to key CS groups involved here to join efforts to
> develop such an online register. If it is needed for corporate lobbyists,
> it is today needed much more for CS groups as well. *My organisation is
> happy to take a lead to be the initial point of contact for those
> interested to develop such an initiative. Once there is an initial mass of
> groups/ individuals they can together choose an appropriate governance
> structure for the initiative. *
>
> So many IG documents to day speak of transparency among stakeholder
> groups, but little is done in practice (including the CSTD working group on
> IGF improvement, and the much celebrated Net Mundial document). CS must of
> course take the lead, and the conscience keeper of governance processes.
>
> parminder
>
>
> jfc
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150507/19a401b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From azrak_khan at hotmail.com  Thu May  7 11:59:05 2015
From: azrak_khan at hotmail.com (azrak_khan at hotmail.com)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 15:59:05 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fnancial economy of Internet freedom
 [was Political economy  ....]
In-Reply-To: <20150507142107.85FD4809E7@bestbits.net>
References: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net>
 <20150507142107.85FD4809E7@bestbits.net>
Message-ID: <BLU406-EAS3442EB719E38FF95BC12D32FFDF0@phx.gbl>

+1 JFC on touching the grey areas of civil society club. I have never seen it but heard some internet freedom activists travel business class to these conferences as well. May be someone can shed some light on it. 
Arzak 



        Sent by Outlook for Android

	_____________________________

From:Jefsey

Subject:[bestbits] Fnancial economy of Internet freedom [was Political economy  ....]

To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org, parminder, Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org, governance at lists.igcaucus.org, BestBitsList





 
 
   At 11:46 07/05/2015, parminder wrote:
  
 
  
     http://boundary2.org/2015/04/29/dissecting-the-internet-freedom-agenda/ 
  
  
 Seems interesting. But what I am interested in first in in dissecting the financing of the internet freedom activists. Does someone knows something trustable to read in that area?

 When there is a meeting somewhere in the world, how civil society members happen to be there? Who does actually pull the string wallets and wallet strings? Who does foot the civil society bill?

 Just to know how politically (un)correct should my association be to qualify? And where to apply?

 jfc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150507/662349a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu May  7 12:16:31 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 21:46:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fnancial economy of Internet freedom
 [was Political economy  ....]
In-Reply-To: <BLU406-EAS3442EB719E38FF95BC12D32FFDF0@phx.gbl>
References: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net> <20150507142107.85FD4809E7@bestbits.net> <BLU406-EAS3442EB719E38FF95BC12D32FFDF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4B1F64FC-C45F-4374-B9BF-C376358FA11A@hserus.net>

It depends - if you have enough funding to hire highly trained lawyers that can file effective policy briefs rather than simply emit buzzword laden and noisy commentary, then it pays to have them travel in such a way that they arrive rested and fresh before say a set of negotiations - rather than pinch pennies (or well a few thousand dollars ) to fly them by coach and have them unproductive + jet lagged for several hours.

Time is indeed money in some cases 

--srs

> On 07-May-2015, at 9:29 pm, <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> +1 JFC on touching the grey areas of civil society club. I have never seen it but heard some internet freedom activists travel business class to these conferences as well. May be someone can shed some light on it. 
> 
> Arzak 
> 
> Sent by Outlook for Android
> _____________________________
> From:Jefsey
> Subject:[bestbits] Fnancial economy of Internet freedom [was Political economy ....]
> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org, parminder, Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org, governance at lists.igcaucus.org, BestBitsList
> 
> 
> At 11:46 07/05/2015, parminder wrote: 
> http://boundary2.org/2015/04/29/dissecting-the-internet-freedom-agenda/
> 
> Seems interesting. But what I am interested in first in in dissecting the financing of the internet freedom activists. Does someone knows something trustable to read in that area?
> 
> When there is a meeting somewhere in the world, how civil society members happen to be there? Who does actually pull the string wallets and wallet strings? Who does foot the civil society bill?
> 
> Just to know how politically (un)correct should my association be to qualify? And where to apply?
> 
> jfc
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150507/381876db/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  Thu May  7 12:54:04 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 18:54:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fnancial economy of Internet freedom [was
  Political economy ....]
In-Reply-To: <554B79E3.60908@itforchange.net>
References: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net>
 <E1YqMh4-0004NJ-Mb@shire.syminet.com>
 <554B79E3.60908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E1YqP2B-0005s2-OC@igcaucus.org>

At 16:42 07/05/2015, parminder wrote:
>>Seems interesting. But what I am interested in first, is in 
>>dissecting the financing of the internet freedom activists. Does 
>>someone knows something trustable to read in that area?
>>
>>When there is a meeting somewhere in the world, how civil society 
>>members happen to be there? Who does actually pull the string 
>>wallets and wallet strings? Who does foot the civil society bill?
>>
>>Just to know how politically (un)correct should my association be 
>>to qualify? And where to apply?
>
>Yes, JFC, this is perhaps the single most important issue - to try 
>to understand and perhaps apply corrective pressures on the current 
>IG related civil society (CS) configuration... But unfortunately the 
>involved CS is unable to build any kind of consensus on this all 
>important issue, or to act on it... It is so surprising that a 
>sector whose raison d'etre is to seek accountability from all those 
>who are powerful itself refuses to to be held accountable. In fact, 
>raising this issue in these civil society groups has attracted most 
>vile responses, as for instance Norbert faced a year or two back.

The issue as I see it is as follows:

- Multistakeholderism will be with us by dominance decision. This 
dominance will include the masters of the "Internet Global 
Community". Read it: an RFC 6852 group ICANN, Davos, IETF, ISOC, 
RIRs, with NTIA as a watch dog, and FCC as legal liaison with Congres 
Lobbies, where the public will be consulted as it is by ICANN today: 
comments on leaders' decision sites, drinks in NETmundial cocktails 
around the world, social engineering by press releases, CS Buzz on a 
few sponsorded activists lists where a mere hundred of people will 
casually discuss digital human cyber rights in a numeric world 
virtual acosystem where Govs and ITU are the evil.

- the NSA-compatible Unicode limited technology will continue to help 
Google, Apple, FaceBook, Microsoft, etc. to control and collect 
mentally formated e-purses round the world.

- Until a Xerox/NSA-accepted NDN Hollywood technology helps securing 
the DRMs and call on the USCC to hunt the Chinese hackers and the 
vilain Pirates.

I do not want to belong to this context. So, I frankly do not give a 
damn about vile responses (sorry I do not recall about the Norbert's 
suffering, but I experienced something interesting when the IESG 
***voted*** ("we hate kings, votes ...") me out the IETF for having 
obtained (by multiple consensusses ... against what I asked) a less 
bad RFC 4444 for cultures than the one the business/political Unicode 
consortium wanted to impose on them as a market.

So, I suppose there are enough people throughout the world being 
fed-up with the multistakeholderist promises above, to say "I do 
co-create a LIBRE civil transparency registry where evey 
organization, including single manned initiative and mailing lists, 
can register, document their funding, document their history, tell 
about their followers, get commented, and obtain trust and 
alliance-meshing from this. This will be transparent 
"omnistakeholderism" among those who want to be CS lead users.

>My organisation has proposed to some key players to set up a online 
>register of  some kind for CS players in the IG space, on the lines 
>of EU Transparency Register 
><http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do>http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do 
>. But our discussions went nowhere.
>
>Once, again, I appeal  to key CS groups involved here to join 
>efforts to develop such an online register. If it is needed for 
>corporate lobbyists, it is today needed much more for CS groups as 
>well. My organisation is happy to take a lead to be the initial 
>point of contact for those interested to develop such an initiative. 
>Once there is an initial mass of groups/ individuals they can 
>together choose an appropriate governance structure for the initiative.

I suggest
1) the governance to be as mechanic as possible to be neutral - and 
the registry mecanism to be copied in OpenSource and given to other 
CivilSociety areas of interests.
2) a "meme bank" to be attached. Where organizations and people might 
drop memes on what they support/proposes/suggest. We are not 
interested in votes, but in good suggestions being available to everyone.

>So many IG documents to day speak of transparency among stakeholder 
>groups, but little is done in practice (including the CSTD working 
>group on IGF improvement, and the much celebrated Net Mundial 
>document). CS must of course take the lead, and the conscience 
>keeper of governance processes.

Amen.
jfc



>parminder
>
>>
>>jfc
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150507/0e67aa33/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  Fri May  8 10:45:02 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 16:45:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] Call for papers: 5th International Symposium on Cloud
 & Trusted Computing (C&TC 2015)
Message-ID: <00db01d0899d$90da22b0$b28e6810$@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

==========================================================================



===========

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



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.
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 COMPLETED SOON



Marco Anisetti, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

Vijay Atluri, Rutgers University, USA

N. Balakrishnan, Indian Institute of Science, India

Endre Bangerter, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland

Michele Bezzi, SAP, France

Bud Brugger, Fraunhofer IAO, Germany

Marco Casassa Mont, HP Labs, UK

David Chadwick, University of Kent, UK

Henry Chan, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Alfredo Cuzzocrea, University of Calabria, Italy

Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

Stefan Dessloch, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany

Francesco Di Cerbo, SAP Labs, France

Scharam Dustdar, Technical University of Vienna, Austria

Stefanos Gritzalis, University of the Aegean, Greece

Nils Gruschka, FH Kiel, Germany

Marit Hansen, Unabhangiges Landeszentrum fur Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein,
Kiel, Germany

Ching Hsien Hsu, Chung Hua University, Taiwan

Patrick Hung, University of Ontario, Canada

Martin Jaatun, SINTEF ICT, Norway

Florian Kerschbaum, SAP, Germany

Ryan Ko, University of Waikato, New Zealand

Zhiqiang Lin, UT Dallas, USA

Luigi Lo Iacono, Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Germany

Gregorio Martinez, University of Murcia, Spain

Hadi Otrok, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Smriti R. Ramakrishnan, Oracle Corporation, USA

Damien Sauveron, Universite' de Limoges, France

Jorg Schwenk, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany

Russell Sears, Pure Storage, USA

Bhavani Thuraisingham, UT Dallas, USA

Luca Vigano', King's College London, UK



===============

Publicity Chair

===============



- Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy



More information available at
http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/cloud-trust-15






****************
Per destinare il 5x1000 all'Universita' degli Studi di Milano: indicare nella dichiarazione dei redditi il codice fiscale 80012650158.

http://www.unimi.it/13084.htm?utm_source=firmaMail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=linkFirmaEmail&utm_campaign=5xmille

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150508/f8136990/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  Fri May  8 16:56:53 2015
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 17:56:53 -0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] WSIS - Outcome of the UN CSTD
 negtiations (4-8 May, Geneva)
In-Reply-To: <1431111612640.60246@isoc.org>
References: <1431111612640.60246@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1+2d1zsdcypX477r6++K6QyxmkEq21xdVuO8KWcOu4UQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all, sharing this very useful and brief report on the CSTD meeting.
Have a nice weekend!
Marília

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer at isoc.org>
Date: Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:00 PM
Subject: [Internet Policy] WSIS - Outcome of the UN CSTD negtiations (4-8
May, Geneva)
To: Internet Policy External <InternetPolicy at elists.isoc.org>


 Dear Colleagues,



This is to share with you a brief report on the UN CSTD annual session
<http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=990&Sitemap_x0020_Taxonomy=UNCTAD%20Home;#1450;>
(4-8 May 2015, Geneva).



Note that this was the last negotiation phase
<http://www.internetsociety.org/igtimeline> of the *10-year Review of the
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)* before the UN General
Assembly process begins in June. A report from the CSTD Secretariat,
"*Implementing WSIS
outcomes: A ten-year review*", was endorsed. A resolution on WSIS was
negotiated, which will provide important guidance for the events to happen
in New York, in December. And Peter Major (Hungary) was elected Chair of
the next CSTD session.



On Monday, ISOC’s Vice-President for Global Engagement*, *Raúl Echeberría,
delivered a strong statement
<http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/05/shared-un-cstd-today-perspective-wsis10-and-opportunities-and-challenges>
that I encourage you to read. The ISOC delegation (Konstantinos Komaitis,
Nicolas Seidler and myself) interacted with delegations all week, working
throughout difficult negotiations. My colleagues will be sharing a blog
post on Monday with an in-depth analysis of the outcome. In the meantime
and for your convenience, below are a few highlights from the meeting:



*Main takeaways of the CSTD*:

- Overall, the WSIS resolution (soon available on-line) is very
conservative.

- The value of multistakeholder cooperation in implementing the WSIS
targets was recognized. This is positive.

- Issues such as the WSIS+10 modalities and “enhanced cooperation” were
discussed, but with no specific outcome.

- While not calling explicitly for the renewal of the IGF's mandate, the
resolution welcomes the offer from Mexico to host IGF 2016, subject to the
decision by UNGA on the renewal. The improvements currently underway are
also acknowledged. In clear, this means the IGF will be at the center of
the upcoming WSIS+10 negotiations.



*Next steps:*

The WSIS resolution will feed into ECOSOC (July) and UN GA (Sept – Dec).
The membership of these fora being different than CSTD, language can still
evolve. For instance, the renewal of the mandate of the IGF could still be
included at the UN GA level. Between now and the UN GA, a negotiation
process will start in June, towards the High-Level Event on the overall
WSIS+10 review, in December.


 Acknowledging that the WSIS negotiations can be a little difficult to
navigate, ISOC will soon publish background information on the process but
also on the issues being discussed.



More to follow on Monday in Nicolas and Konstantinos' blog post!



Best regards,



Constance Bommelaer

Senior Director, Global Internet Policy

The Internet Society

www.isoc.org



_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.



-- 
*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/20150508/ab97cf2f/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  Sat May  9 09:19:14 2015
From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 13:19:14 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF BP Multistakeholder Mechanisms - Webinar Tuesday
 12 May, 19:30 CET
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1+2d1zsdcypX477r6++K6QyxmkEq21xdVuO8KWcOu4UQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1431111612640.60246@isoc.org>,<CACpVkK1+2d1zsdcypX477r6++K6QyxmkEq21xdVuO8KWcOu4UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1431177554092.2784@isoc.org>


Dear Colleagues,



The concept of best practices<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums> was re-introduced last year by the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) as a way for the IGF to develop best practices on a set of issues including Spam, CSIRTs, IXPs, etc.



Given this community's expertise in Internet governance, I wanted to draw to your attention that there is a Webinar scheduled for next Tuesday, at 7:30 pm CET, to discuss the IGF Best Practices on Multistakeholder Mechanisms. The call will be facilitated by Avri Doria.



Participation and discussion has mainly happened through a mailing list to which one will need to subscribe in order to follow and contribute to the discussions. Subscribing to the mailing list can be done here<http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org>.



Last year, the group produced an outcome document which the group will also be discussing this year. The document can be downloaded here<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/developing-meaningful-multistakeholder-participation-mechnisms>.



If you could participate in the call and, more importantly, share your experience and interaction with multistakeholder processes it would be extremely beneficial.



Call details:
BPF Developing Meaningful MS Mechanisms
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
7:30 pm Central European Time

Register for the call here<https://intgovforum.webex.com/mw0401lsp13/mywebex/default.do?service=1&siteurl=intgovforum&nomenu=true&main_url=%2Fmc0901lsp13%2Fe.do%3Fsiteurl%3Dintgovforum%26AT%3DMI%26EventID%3D342867287%26UID%3D0%26Host%3DQUhTSwAAAAJPwxcnqOfTBw8hmKQWq_9qjmSCqPCYKV-rruvgd-_AGsFvPBEYdemiWiI2-d76YB4M5na0HEcIXKF0hjZ0GW6C0%26RG%3D1%26FrameSet%3D2>.



If you need any assistance, please contact Brian Gutterman (gutterman at unog.org<mailto:gutterman at unog.org>) or Chengetai Masango (cmasango at unog.ch<mailto:cmasango at unog.ch>).





Best regards,

Constance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150509/89ffd5c3/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 May 11 07:12:59 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:42:59 +0530
Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality is Basically Internet Egalitarianism
Message-ID: <55508EBB.6090503@itforchange.net>

My article on net neutrality from an equality and social justice
perspective in the leasing social science journal in India, The Economic
And Political Weekly.

It is titled ' Net Neutrality is Basically Internet Egalitarianism'

http://www.epw.in/commentary/net-neutrality-basically-internet-egalitarianism.html

Also enclosed as pdf.


parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150511/be457d36/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Singh_ Net_Neutrality_Is_Basically_Internet_Egalitarianism.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 67123 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150511/be457d36/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Tue May 12 03:47:46 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 09:47:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] APC,  Internet Democracy, IFLA statement at CSTD 2015
Message-ID: <5551B022.1060007@apc.org>

Dear all

Apologies for cross posting.

This is the APC, Internet Democracy and IFLA statement which was tabled
and read at the Commission for Science and Technology 18th Session in
Geneva last week.

Best

Anriette

http://www.apc.org/en/news/statement-we-remain-strongly-committed-goal-people

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

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

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

From capdasiege at gmail.com  Tue May 12 06:00:16 2015
From: capdasiege at gmail.com (CAPDA CAPDA)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 12:00:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] APC, Internet Democracy, IFLA statement at CSTD
 2015
Message-ID: <CAPm5NK4n3FnxV7YOU+f9mpTJeGAQtj7wHrVyEoBi0kSxDMaDDA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Anriette,

Thank you for this beautiful job. Bravo!

Best Regards,

2015-05-12 9:47 GMT+02:00 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:

> Dear all
>
> Apologies for cross posting.
>
> This is the APC, Internet Democracy and IFLA statement which was tabled
> and read at the Commission for Science and Technology 18th Session in
> Geneva last week.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> http://www.apc.org/en/news/statement-we-remain-strongly-committed-goal-people
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 





*Michel TCHONANG LINZECoordinateur GénéralCoordonnateur Régional Afrique
Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile (ACSIS)ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC :
- Forum SMSI du  25-29 Mai 2015, Genève Suisse- SYMPOSIUM TIC AFRIQUE du 07
au 10 Juillet 2015 à Yaoundé - Cameroun- FGI (Forum de la Gouvernance
Internet) du 10 au 13 Novembre 2015 à João Pessoa, Brésil CAPDA (Consortium
d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique)BP :
15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 67775-39-63 / 24212-9493 Email :
capdasiege at gmail.com <capdasiege at gmail.com> *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150512/0c86f929/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  Tue May 12 09:05:33 2015
From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo))
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 14:05:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] APC,  Internet Democracy, IFLA statement at CSTD
 2015
In-Reply-To: <5551B022.1060007@apc.org>
Message-ID: <1431435933.97852.YahooMailIosMobile@web28701.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150512/df4e9920/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 May 12 12:32:56 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 12:32:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_THURS/FRI_=E2=80=93_Global_Confere?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?nce_on_Internet_Governance_and_Cyber-Security_=40_Columbia_SIPA?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0YBoRrxi4jCUpR7=P5B7upU0NDu1m3GfWsTMN3hbTn3A@mail.gmail.com>

​This is as strong an assembly of Internet Governance experts as NYC has
ever seen! ISOC is well represented by President/CEO Kathy Brown, ​
​
Konstantinos Komaitis from our policy staff, Michael Nelson from our DC
Chapter, plus former CTO Leslie Daigle and our co-founder Vint Cerf. Note
that a number of background papers
<https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/cross-cutting-initiatives/cyber-security/background-papers>
have been  contributed by the GCIG and by speakers including 'On the Nature
of the Internet
<https://ourinternet-files.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/gcig_paper_no7.pdf>'
by Leslie Daigle. The conference itself is fully subscribed, but please
enjoy the livestream.



 joly posted: "On Thursday May 14 and Friday May 15 2015 the  Columbia
University School of International and Public Affairs(SIPA) and the Global
Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) will present the Conference on
Internet Governance and Cyber-Security at Columbia U"


[image: SIPA_GCIG_Conference] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/SIPA>
On *Thursday May 14* and* Friday May 15* 2015 the  Columbia University
School of International and Public Affairs <https://sipa.columbia.edu/>(SIPA)
and the Global Commission on Internet Governance
<https://ourinternet.org/> (GCIG)
will present the *Conference on Internet Governance and Cyber-Security
<http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/conference-on-internet-governance-cyber-security>*
at
Columbia University in NYC. Over 40 speakers – including*Vint Cerf*,* Kathy
Brown*, *Fadi Chehadé*, *Larry Strickling*, *David Gross*, *Tim Wu*, *Leslie
Daigle*,* Rebecca Mackinnon*, *Konstantinos Komaitis,* *Michael Nelson*,
and *Laura DeNardis*, will discuss the most pressing policy issues in the
worlds of internet governance and cyber-security including privacy,
security, innovation, international trade and cross border data flows, data
protectionism, human rights, freedom of expression and more. The conference
will be webcast live via a joint effort of the Internet Society and the
SIPA IT Department.

*What: Conference on Internet Governance and Cyber-Security
<http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/conference-on-internet-governance-cyber-security>*
*Where: Italian Academy, Columbia University NYC*
*When: Thursday May 14 09:00-21:00 EDT (13:00-01:00 UTC) and Friday May 15
2015 09:00-14:00 EDT (13:00-18:00 UTC)*
*Agenda: https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/cross-cutting-initiatives/cyber-security/agenda
<https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/cross-cutting-initiatives/cyber-security/agenda>*
*Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/SIPA
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/SIPA>*
*Twitter: @ColombiaSIPA
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=columbiasipa&src=typd>*




Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7767#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7767#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7767




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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/20150512/a65c617e/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  Tue May 12 12:40:10 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 22:10:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] APC,  Internet Democracy, IFLA statement at CSTD
 2015
In-Reply-To: <5551B022.1060007@apc.org>
References: <5551B022.1060007@apc.org>
Message-ID: <55522CEA.8060501@itforchange.net>

This is the statement made by IT for Change in the same meeting...

http://www.itforchange.net/IT_for_Change_statement_to_CSTD

"IT for Change was at the 18th annual session of the United Nations
Commission on Science and Technology for Development . We delivered the
following intervention during the plenary discussion reviewing the World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This meeting of the Commission
was supposed to input into the WSIS plus 10 review to be taken up in
December, 2015, by the UN General Assembly. Unfortunately, even as
critical issues about  the Internet -  most with significant global
political dimensions- are  increasingly gathering momentum, the
Commission's proceedings saw a complete political stalemate. Anyone
sitting through the five days of the annual session would have got the
impression that all is truly well with the Internet and its global
societal impact! Our statement speaks out against such complacency
andabdication of global political responsibility by key actors."

parminder


On Tuesday 12 May 2015 01:17 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Apologies for cross posting.
>
> This is the APC, Internet Democracy and IFLA statement which was tabled
> and read at the Commission for Science and Technology 18th Session in
> Geneva last week.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
> http://www.apc.org/en/news/statement-we-remain-strongly-committed-goal-people
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150512/1f95c293/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Tue May 12 13:56:04 2015
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 19:56:04 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?APC=2C_=C2=A0Internet_Democracy=2C_IFL?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?A_statement_at_CSTD_2015?=
In-Reply-To: <55522CEA.8060501@itforchange.net>
References: <5551B022.1060007@apc.org> <55522CEA.8060501@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <687552502.23079.1431453364162.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e01>

Thanks, Parminder for this very useful complement to the APC-IFLA statement. 

 

Quoting your presentation :




I want to add "An as much greater attention needs to be paid on the overall costs of what has been realized e.g. in terms of ICT infrastructures and access ... and was especially celebrated by the ITU during the past WSIS Fora/shows. I mean a lot of telecom cables, routes and parts of networks have been implemented for the sake of competition instead of complementation. This happened in submarine cables as well as on terrestiel cables. Is there any need for eight submarine cables along Africa's West coast? Or for three landing stations in Cameroons ? Or for four OF backbones in Kenya ?. Just three examples taken out from a lot of scandalous duplications. What's more, all these cables ans stations are largely underused in regard of their capacity. This raises THE QUESTION : to the expense of WHICH essential sectors of peoples lives and development were spent these hundreds millions dollars ? Health, education, food, jobs, .... ?

 

Kind regards

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack

 

 

 

 

 

> Message du 12/05/15 18:40
> De : "parminder" 

> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" , forum at justnetcoalition.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] APC,  Internet Democracy, IFLA statement at CSTD 2015
> 
>This is the statement made by IT for Change in the same meeting...
> 
> http://www.itforchange.net/IT_for_Change_statement_to_CSTD
> 
> "IT for Change was at the 18th annual session of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development . We delivered the following intervention during the plenary discussion reviewing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This meeting of the Commission was supposed to input into the WSIS plus 10 review to be taken up in December, 2015, by the UN General Assembly. Unfortunately, even as critical issues about  the Internet -  most with significant global political dimensions - are  increasingly gathering momentum, the Commission's proceedings saw a complete political stalemate. Anyone sitting through the five days of the annual session would have got the impression that all is truly well with the Internet and its global societal impact! Our statement speaks out against such complacency and abdication of global political responsibility by key actors."
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
>
On Tuesday 12 May 2015 01:17 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>

Dear all

Apologies for cross posting.

This is the APC, Internet Democracy and IFLA statement which was tabled
and read at the Commission for Science and Technology 18th Session in
Geneva last week.

Best

Anriette

http://www.apc.org/en/news/statement-we-remain-strongly-committed-goal-people



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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/20150512/2dfe2fba/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  Thu May 14 09:38:37 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 09:38:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_THURS/FRI_=E2=80=93_Global_Con?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ference_on_Internet_Governance_and_Cyber-Security_=40_Columbia_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?SIPA?=
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk0YBoRrxi4jCUpR7=P5B7upU0NDu1m3GfWsTMN3hbTn3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk0YBoRrxi4jCUpR7=P5B7upU0NDu1m3GfWsTMN3hbTn3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1DqUNLFbc_jsqjCF05zjtfiw+Kr2zjbFKb-Vn9E7k9Ow@mail.gmail.com>

Change of channel assignment at Columbia.  Theater (main) track will be on
the SIPA channel at http://livestream.com/accounts/3744593/events/3968966.
The Library track will be on ISOC Livestream at
https://livestream.com/internetsociety/SIPA/. Both tracks are embedded at
http://bit.ly/sipacyber - Hashtag is #SIPAcyber
https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=#SIPAcyber&src=typd

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

> ​This is as strong an assembly of Internet Governance experts as NYC has
> ever seen! ISOC is well represented by President/CEO Kathy Brown, ​
> ​
> Konstantinos Komaitis from our policy staff, Michael Nelson from our DC
> Chapter, plus former CTO Leslie Daigle and our co-founder Vint Cerf. Note
> that a number of background papers
> <https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/cross-cutting-initiatives/cyber-security/background-papers>
> have been  contributed by the GCIG and by speakers including 'On the
> Nature of the Internet
> <https://ourinternet-files.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/gcig_paper_no7.pdf>'
> by Leslie Daigle. The conference itself is fully subscribed, but please
> enjoy the livestream.
>
>
>
>  joly posted: "On Thursday May 14 and Friday May 15 2015 the  Columbia
> University School of International and Public Affairs(SIPA) and the Global
> Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) will present the Conference on
> Internet Governance and Cyber-Security at Columbia U"
>
>
> [image: SIPA_GCIG_Conference]
> <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/SIPA>On *Thursday May 14* and* Friday
> May 15* 2015 the  Columbia University School of International and Public
> Affairs <https://sipa.columbia.edu/>(SIPA) and the Global Commission on
> Internet Governance <https://ourinternet.org/> (GCIG) will present the *Conference
> on Internet Governance and Cyber-Security
> <http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/conference-on-internet-governance-cyber-security>* at
> Columbia University in NYC. Over 40 speakers – including*Vint Cerf*,* Kathy
> Brown*, *Fadi Chehadé*, *Larry Strickling*, *David Gross*, *Tim Wu*, *Leslie
> Daigle*,* Rebecca Mackinnon*, *Konstantinos Komaitis,* *Michael Nelson*,
> and *Laura DeNardis*, will discuss the most pressing policy issues in the
> worlds of internet governance and cyber-security including privacy,
> security, innovation, international trade and cross border data flows, data
> protectionism, human rights, freedom of expression and more. The conference
> will be webcast live via a joint effort of the Internet Society and the
> SIPA IT Department.
>
> *What: Conference on Internet Governance and Cyber-Security
> <http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/conference-on-internet-governance-cyber-security>*
> *Where: Italian Academy, Columbia University NYC*
> *When: Thursday May 14 09:00-21:00 EDT (13:00-01:00 UTC) and Friday May 15
> 2015 09:00-14:00 EDT (13:00-18:00 UTC)*
> *Agenda: https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/cross-cutting-initiatives/cyber-security/agenda
> <https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/cross-cutting-initiatives/cyber-security/agenda>*
> *Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/SIPA
> <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/SIPA>*
> *Twitter: @ColombiaSIPA
> <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=columbiasipa&src=typd>*
>
>
>
>
> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7767#respond>   See all comments
> <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7767#comments>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *​Permalink*
>
> http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7767
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/20150514/3a5deab2/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 geetha at cis-india.org  Fri May 15 05:51:14 2015
From: geetha at cis-india.org (Geetha Hariharan)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 15:21:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and Public Interest.

Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
might be interested.

Best,
Geetha.

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Swaraj Barooah
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and the Public Interest, 2015

Dear all,

We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
“Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
applications to participate in the Congress, including session
participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
panels and workshops.

The application form is available now at
[http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.

Deadlines

August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).

November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
submissions will close on November 1st.

Application Information

For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
the form.

For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
any other relevant information provided by the applicant.

Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
countries.

Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
policy can best serve the public interest.

The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.

The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
of IP policy and practice.

Participation Opportunities

Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.

The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.

Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
interest.

The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
.

Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
aforementioned sessions.

The application form for participation is available now
athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
<mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.

Organisation

The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.

The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.


On behalf of the organizing committee,

Swaraj Barooah

Swaraj Paul Barooah
Project Manager, "Global Congress"
(Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)

Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com>
Founder, Know-GAP
Twitter: @swarajpb

- -- 
Geetha Hariharan
Programme Officer
Centre for Internet and Society
W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 8860 360717
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVVcGSAAoJENMCY59StgV56IIH/1Yjv+71wKsBsOu0jXVPLJGK
8t9eilfrol8yDw2Oq8dy4PApcXGSIV+fAANk8Fu3kQsBcHZ2eo8Pa1mLYpmcyW0w
G3BOipfl3qot3iRJhEAVXMeYxma73YCA9m3g6zIqMmyTJVmQX4pYieh19NkJ6gdh
0CcStqOAl7NT3U9JCgxmCYdHXI8zzacFJ7TKT4+FvDTtY0HznFDJYnWObBdwOIMm
ggAkgyS4qYthkmNYzMRAAmAEf94UitCZeojrNRqT2qZoMtfKg9b8kbZzuPK1C4a5
MhqzNUiQO5CYFN+m9qkcrDDNZDUWW2HylpLjtYNVP3X8NjCzck5EoZtzxGlRyEE=
=McTe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Call for Participation- Global Congress 2015-(Revised).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 158239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150515/2f86a635/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pierre.ouedraogo at gmail.com  Fri May 15 10:09:40 2015
From: pierre.ouedraogo at gmail.com (Pierre Ouedraogo)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 16:09:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?S=C3=A9minaire_international_de_formation_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?gouvernance_de_l=27internet_et_des_syst=C3=A8mes_d=27informatio?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?n?=
Message-ID: <CAGejoAaiUgv_ggRSNQw-+OHJAzmW74p8KFVUS12AhgrB2XaYQg@mail.gmail.com>

Le gouvernement du Burkina Faso et l’Organisation internationale de la
Francophonie organisent avec le soutien de plusieurs institutions et
organisations internationales, la première session de formation des
formateurs francophones sur la gouvernance de l’Internet et des systèmes
d’information  du *20 au 25 juillet 2015 à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso).*


Il s'agira d'une véritable formation de formateurs de l’Afrique francophone
regroupant aussi bien des décideurs intervenant dans la  formulation des
politiques en matière de développement de l’économie numérique que de
techniciens du domaine.  Ces techniciens seront appelés à répéter la
formation dans leur pays d'origine. L'objectif final étant de créer une
masse critique d'experts très avertis des questions de gouvernance de
l'Internet et des systèmes d’information. Cette initiative vise à permettre
à l'Afrique francophone de mieux tirer profit de ces technologies et
améliorer sa contribution dans les réunions où se discute l’avenir du
réseau mondial.


Les inscriptions sont ouvertes du *15 au 31 mai 2015 *et vous pouvez vous
inscrire en utilisant le formulaire en ligne:

http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/index.php/participer-a-l-atelier


Veuillez noter que les titres de transport aller-retour sont à la charge
des participants sélectionnés. L’hébergement et la restauration sont
assurés gracieusement par le gouvernement du Burkina Faso pour les
participants sélectionnés qui devront assurer eux-mêmes les autres frais
liés à leur séjour comme les assurances (maladie, accident, évacuation
sanitaire etc.), les extras au niveau de l’hôtel (téléphone, boissons,
blanchisserie etc.) et les éventuelles extensions de séjour après le
séminaire. Une lettre officielle d’invitation précisant ces points sera
envoyée à tous les candidats qui seront retenus.


Pour plus d’informations, vous pouvez consulter le site du séminaire :

http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/

et joindre par courriel le comité d’organisation à l’adresse courrielle
ci-dessous:

iticcbf at gmail.com


<iticcbf at gmail.com>

Bien cordialement,
PO
<iticcbf at gmail.com>
-- 
Pierre OUEDRAOGO
Président du comité de pilotage
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150515/acab976d/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 f.massit at orange.fr  Fri May 15 10:17:41 2015
From: f.massit at orange.fr (=?utf-8?Q?fran=C3=A7oise46?=)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 16:17:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?S=C3=A9minaire_international_de_format?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ion_gouvernance_de_l=27internet_et_des_syst=C3=A8mes_d=27inform?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ation?=
In-Reply-To: <CAGejoAaiUgv_ggRSNQw-+OHJAzmW74p8KFVUS12AhgrB2XaYQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGejoAaiUgv_ggRSNQw-+OHJAzmW74p8KFVUS12AhgrB2XaYQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6D3FED3A-5E4D-446D-BA4C-C4AF36AE68D7@orange.fr>

Bonjour Pierre
Je pensais bien que tu n’allais pas être un retraité inactif !!!
Toutes mes félicitations pour cette initiative indispensable.
La liste des intervenants-formateurs est-elle bouclée ?
Reçois mes fidèles amitiés,

Françoise Massit-Folléa
f.massit at orange.fr

> Le 15 mai 2015 à 16:09, Pierre Ouedraogo <pierre.ouedraogo at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> Le gouvernement du Burkina Faso et l’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie organisent avec le soutien de plusieurs institutions et organisations internationales, la première session de formation des formateurs francophones sur la gouvernance de l’Internet et des systèmes d’information  du 20 au 25 juillet 2015 à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso).
> 
> 
> 
> Il s'agira d'une véritable formation de formateurs de l’Afrique francophone regroupant aussi bien des décideurs intervenant dans la  formulation des politiques en matière de développement de l’économie numérique que de techniciens du domaine.  Ces techniciens seront appelés à répéter la formation dans leur pays d'origine. L'objectif final étant de créer une masse critique d'experts très avertis des questions de gouvernance de l'Internet et des systèmes d’information. Cette initiative vise à permettre à l'Afrique francophone de mieux tirer profit de ces technologies et améliorer sa contribution dans les réunions où se discute l’avenir du réseau mondial.
> 
> 
> 
> Les inscriptions sont ouvertes du 15 au 31 mai 2015 et vous pouvez vous inscrire en utilisant le formulaire en ligne:
> 
> http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/index.php/participer-a-l-atelier <http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/index.php/participer-a-l-atelier> 
> 
> 
> 
> Veuillez noter que les titres de transport aller-retour sont à la charge des participants sélectionnés. L’hébergement et la restauration sont assurés gracieusement par le gouvernement du Burkina Faso pour les participants sélectionnés qui devront assurer eux-mêmes les autres frais liés à leur séjour comme les assurances (maladie, accident, évacuation sanitaire etc.), les extras au niveau de l’hôtel (téléphone, boissons, blanchisserie etc.) et les éventuelles extensions de séjour après le séminaire. Une lettre officielle d’invitation précisant ces points sera envoyée à tous les candidats qui seront retenus.
> 
> 
> 
> Pour plus d’informations, vous pouvez consulter le site du séminaire :
> 
> http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/ <http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/>
> et joindre par courriel le comité d’organisation à l’adresse courrielle ci-dessous:
> 
> iticcbf at gmail.com <mailto:iticcbf at gmail.com>
> 
>  <mailto:iticcbf at gmail.com>
> Bien cordialement,
> 
> PO
>  <mailto:iticcbf at gmail.com>
> -- 
> Pierre OUEDRAOGO
> Président du comité de pilotage
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150515/d86773dd/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 capdasiege at gmail.com  Fri May 15 12:47:00 2015
From: capdasiege at gmail.com (CAPDA CAPDA)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 18:47:00 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5Bfrancophonie=2Eicann=5D_S=E9mi?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?naire_international_de_formation_gouvernance_de_l=27intern?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?et_et_des_syst=E8mes_d=27information?=
In-Reply-To: <DUB113-W50AEC92490CEEC923EC68CCC70@phx.gbl>
References: <CAGejoAaiUgv_ggRSNQw-+OHJAzmW74p8KFVUS12AhgrB2XaYQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DUB113-W50AEC92490CEEC923EC68CCC70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAPm5NK5XMa3YTz+sd=1jnWhGPruMCuFrJfvo2CMVdo9_4O1xdg@mail.gmail.com>

*Bonjour cher grand frère,*



*Il y a quelques années, un doyen du développement me faisait savoir qu'un
bon acteur n'a jamais de grandes vacances, bravo ! Je me réjouis de cette
belle initiative qui intervient comme une des réponses à la préoccupation
des acteurs des TIC de la sous-région Afrique Centrale. Il est souhaitable
que ce genre d'initiative se multiplie dans nos sous régions afin de nous
permettre, non seulement d'avoir régulièrement des supports dans la langue
de notre réseau, mais aussi la participation de la majorité de nos pays.*



*Bon courage !*

Le 15 mai 2015 18:21, Roland KONODJI GUELNGAR <ngarkara at hotmail.com> a
écrit :

> Bonjour M. Ouedraogo,
>
> Toutes mes révérences pour cette intéressante et louable initiative. Je
> vais m'efforcer à y prendre part, Dieu voulant.
>
> Cordialement.
>
> ==============================
> *KONODJI GUELNGAR Roland*
> Tél: + 235 66 26 44 01
> N'Djamena
> Tchad
>
>                            *It takes less time to do a thing right, than
> it does to explain why you did it wrong*
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: pierre.ouedraogo at gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 16:09:40 +0200
> To: africann at afrinic.net; francophonie.icann at diffusion.francophonie.org;
> linux-afrique at diffusion.francophonie.org; aisi-ig-l at dgroups.org;
> announce at afrinic.net; afren at afnong.org; afnog at afnog.org;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [francophonie.icann] Séminaire international de formation
> gouvernance de l'internet et des systèmes d'information
>
>
> Le gouvernement du Burkina Faso et l'Organisation internationale de la
> Francophonie organisent avec le soutien de plusieurs institutions et
> organisations internationales, la première session de formation des
> formateurs francophones sur la gouvernance de l'Internet et des systèmes
> d'information  du *20 au 25 juillet 2015 à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso).*
>
>
> Il s'agira d'une véritable formation de formateurs de l'Afrique
> francophone regroupant aussi bien des décideurs intervenant dans la  formulation
> des politiques en matière de développement de l'économie numérique que de
> techniciens du domaine.  Ces techniciens seront appelés à répéter la
> formation dans leur pays d'origine. L'objectif final étant de créer une
> masse critique d'experts très avertis des questions de gouvernance de
> l'Internet et des systèmes d'information. Cette initiative vise à permettre
> à l'Afrique francophone de mieux tirer profit de ces technologies et
> améliorer sa contribution dans les réunions où se discute l'avenir du
> réseau mondial.
>
>
> Les inscriptions sont ouvertes du *15 au 31 mai 2015 *et vous pouvez vous
> inscrire en utilisant le formulaire en ligne:
>
> http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/index.php/participer-a-l-atelier
>
>
> Veuillez noter que les titres de transport aller-retour sont à la charge
> des participants sélectionnés. L'hébergement et la restauration sont
> assurés gracieusement par le gouvernement du Burkina Faso pour les
> participants sélectionnés qui devront assurer eux-mêmes les autres frais
> liés à leur séjour comme les assurances (maladie, accident, évacuation
> sanitaire etc.), les extras au niveau de l'hôtel (téléphone, boissons,
> blanchisserie etc.) et les éventuelles extensions de séjour après le
> séminaire. Une lettre officielle d'invitation précisant ces points sera
> envoyée à tous les candidats qui seront retenus.
>
>
> Pour plus d'informations, vous pouvez consulter le site du séminaire :
>
> http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/
>
> et joindre par courriel le comité d'organisation à l'adresse courrielle
> ci-dessous:
>
> iticcbf at gmail.com
>
>
> <iticcbf at gmail.com>
>
> Bien cordialement,
> PO
> <iticcbf at gmail.com>
> --
> Pierre OUEDRAOGO
> Président du comité de pilotage
>
>


-- 





*Michel TCHONANG LINZECoordinateur GénéralCoordonnateur Régional Afrique
Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile (ACSIS)ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC :
- Forum SMSI du  25-29 Mai 2015, Genève Suisse- SYMPOSIUM TIC AFRIQUE du 07
au 10 Juillet 2015 à Yaoundé - Cameroun- FGI (Forum de la Gouvernance
Internet) du 10 au 13 Novembre 2015 à João Pessoa, Brésil CAPDA (Consortium
d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique)BP :
15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 67775-39-63 / 24212-9493 Email :
capdasiege at gmail.com <capdasiege at gmail.com> *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150515/64e80b61/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Fri May 15 19:07:19 2015
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 01:07:19 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?S=C3=A9minaire_international_de_format?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ion_gouvernance_de_l=27internet_et_des_syst=C3=A8mes_d=27inform?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ation?=
Message-ID: <1660764746.20723.1431731239629.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k06>

Bonjour Pierre

 

et sincères félicitation pour cette initiative à tous points bienvenue. Car elle permettra à l'Afrique (francophone) de faire entendre sa voix dans cette problématique complexe. Saluons-en tous les contributeurs.

 

Souhaitons dès maintenant une bonne réussite aux organisateurs et à tous les (heureux) participants, et tout particulièrement à celles et ceux des organisations et associations de la société civile.

 

Amitiés

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack

 

PS : Je voudrais ausi informer les intéressés de l'existence de la coalition JustNet qui s'est constituée au sein de la SC et dont la déclaration est ici :http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/Communiqu%C3%A9%20De%20Presse%20%28French%29.pdf. D'autres infos en anglais sur son site http://justnetcoalition.org

 

 

> Message du 15/05/15 16:10
> De : "Pierre Ouedraogo" 

> A : africann at afrinic.net, "francophonie.icann at diffusion.francophonie.org" , "Linux Afrique" 
, "Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum" , announce at afrinic.net, afren at afnong.org, afnog at afnog.org, governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] Séminaire international de formation gouvernance de l'internet et des systèmes d'information
> 
>


Le gouvernement du Burkina Faso et l’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie organisent avec le soutien de plusieurs institutions et organisations internationales, la première session de formation des formateurs francophones sur la gouvernance de l’Internet et des systèmes d’information  du 20 au 25 juillet 2015 à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso).


> 

Il s'agira d'une véritable formation de formateurs de l’Afrique francophone regroupant aussi bien des décideurs intervenant dans la  formulation des politiques en matière de développement de l’économie numérique que de techniciens du domaine.  Ces techniciens seront appelés à répéter la formation dans leur pays d'origine. L'objectif final étant de créer une masse critique d'experts très avertis des questions de gouvernance de l'Internet et des systèmes d’information. Cette initiative vise à permettre à l'Afrique francophone de mieux tirer profit de ces technologies et améliorer sa contribution dans les réunions où se discute l’avenir du réseau mondial.


> 

Les inscriptions sont ouvertes du 15 au 31 mai 2015 et vous pouvez vous inscrire en utilisant le formulaire en ligne:

http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/index.php/participer-a-l-atelier 
> 


> 

Veuillez noter que les titres de transport aller-retour sont à la charge des participants sélectionnés. L’hébergement et la restauration sont assurés gracieusement par le gouvernement du Burkina Faso pour les participants sélectionnés qui devront assurer eux-mêmes les autres frais liés à leur séjour comme les assurances (maladie, accident, évacuation sanitaire etc.), les extras au niveau de l’hôtel (téléphone, boissons, blanchisserie etc.) et les éventuelles extensions de séjour après le séminaire. Une lettre officielle d’invitation précisant ces points sera envoyée à tous les candidats qui seront retenus. 


> 

Pour plus d’informations, vous pouvez consulter le site du séminaire :

http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/

et joindre par courriel le comité d’organisation à l’adresse courrielle ci-dessous:

iticcbf at gmail.com


> 

Bien cordialement,

PO
>
 
-- 
>
Pierre OUEDRAOGO
>
Président du comité de pilotage
>

>





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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your 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/20150516/64508a89/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 maj_aj at hotmail.com  Sat May 16 00:17:51 2015
From: maj_aj at hotmail.com (maj_aj)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 07:17:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5Bfrancophonie=2Eicann=5D_S=E9mi?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?naire_international_de_formation_gouvernance_de_l=27intern?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?et_et_des_syst=E8mes_d=27information?=
Message-ID: <DUB407-EAS151839DEC3CCC495828225FDC60@phx.gbl>

Félicitations
Je copie bientôt😉


Sent from Samsung Mobile.

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Pierre Ouedraogo <pierre.ouedraogo at gmail.com> </div><div>Date:15/05/2015  5:11 PM  (GMT+02:00) </div><div>To: africann at afrinic.net,francophonie.icann at diffusion.francophonie.org,Linux Afrique <linux-afrique at diffusion.francophonie.org>,Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum <aisi-ig-l at dgroups.org>,announce at afrinic.net,afren at afnong.org,afnog at afnog.org,governance at lists.igcaucus.org </div><div>Subject: [francophonie.icann] Séminaire international de formation gouvernance de l'internet et des systèmes d'information </div><div>
</div>
Le gouvernement du Burkina Faso et l’Organisation internationale de la
Francophonie organisent avec le soutien de plusieurs institutions et
organisations internationales, la première session de formation des
formateurs francophones sur la gouvernance de l’Internet et des systèmes
d’information  du *20 au 25 juillet 2015 à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso).*


Il s'agira d'une véritable formation de formateurs de l’Afrique francophone
regroupant aussi bien des décideurs intervenant dans la  formulation des
politiques en matière de développement de l’économie numérique que de
techniciens du domaine.  Ces techniciens seront appelés à répéter la
formation dans leur pays d'origine. L'objectif final étant de créer une
masse critique d'experts très avertis des questions de gouvernance de
l'Internet et des systèmes d’information. Cette initiative vise à permettre
à l'Afrique francophone de mieux tirer profit de ces technologies et
améliorer sa contribution dans les réunions où se discute l’avenir du
réseau mondial.


Les inscriptions sont ouvertes du *15 au 31 mai 2015 *et vous pouvez vous
inscrire en utilisant le formulaire en ligne:

http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/index.php/participer-a-l-atelier


Veuillez noter que les titres de transport aller-retour sont à la charge
des participants sélectionnés. L’hébergement et la restauration sont
assurés gracieusement par le gouvernement du Burkina Faso pour les
participants sélectionnés qui devront assurer eux-mêmes les autres frais
liés à leur séjour comme les assurances (maladie, accident, évacuation
sanitaire etc.), les extras au niveau de l’hôtel (téléphone, boissons,
blanchisserie etc.) et les éventuelles extensions de séjour après le
séminaire. Une lettre officielle d’invitation précisant ces points sera
envoyée à tous les candidats qui seront retenus.


Pour plus d’informations, vous pouvez consulter le site du séminaire :

http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/

et joindre par courriel le comité d’organisation à l’adresse courrielle
ci-dessous:

iticcbf at gmail.com


<iticcbf at gmail.com>

Bien cordialement,
PO
<iticcbf at gmail.com>
--
Pierre OUEDRAOGO
Président du comité de pilotage
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150516/cd831659/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 pierre.ouedraogo at gmail.com  Sat May 16 10:17:19 2015
From: pierre.ouedraogo at gmail.com (Pierre Ouedraogo)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 16:17:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=5BAfrICANN-discuss=5D_RE=3A_=5Bfranco?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?phonie=2Eicann=5D_S=C3=A9minaire_international_de_formation_gou?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?vernance_de_l=27internet_et_des_syst=C3=A8mes_d=27information?=
In-Reply-To: <002301d08fd5$1f8d8a00$5ea89e00$@angeie.gov.gn>
References: <CAGejoAaiUgv_ggRSNQw-+OHJAzmW74p8KFVUS12AhgrB2XaYQg@mail.gmail.com> <005301d08fc0$8e5cbec0$ab163c40$@comorestelecom.km> <CAKX6dsGUkXzXjqk_VtnQTxwi=L1W1_yv32-XFYLcBGMXacwJRw@mail.gmail.com> <002301d08fd5$1f8d8a00$5ea89e00$@angeie.gov.gn>
Message-ID: <491CE56B-3005-4757-A6FB-C0D88C27CE77@gmail.com>

Bonjour à tous

Merci pour votre patience.
Le site est à nouveau accessible.

Cordialement
PO

Envoyé de mon iPad
Pierre OUEDRAOGO 

> Le 16 mai 2015 à 14:37, Ahmed Camille Camara <accamara at angeie.gov.gn> a écrit :
> 
> Merci bien seulement qu’il est impossible d’accéder au site pour s’y inscrire.
>  
> Cdt.
>  
> De : africann-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:africann-bounces at afrinic.net] De la part de Barrack Otieno
> Envoyé : samedi 16 mai 2015 10:27
> À : AfrICANN list
> Cc : Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum; afrinic-announce at afrinic.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; afren at afnong.org; francophonie.icann at diffusion.francophonie.org; Linux Afrique; afnog
> Objet : Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] RE: [francophonie.icann] Séminaire international de formation gouvernance de l'internet et des systèmes d'information
>  
> Congratulations PO and OIF, good to see you are still very active in the community.
> 
> Regards
>  
> 2015-05-16 13:10 GMT+03:00 ALI Hadji Mmadi <alihadji at comorestelecom.km>:
> Bonjour à tous,
> J’adhère pleinement à cette initiative qui prouve combien la francophonie se prépare pour tourner la page théorique vers une nouvelle page d’actions et de réaction.
> Bien cordialement.
> Hadji Mmadi ALI
>  
> ============================
> <image001.jpg>
> Chef du Département
> Registre et Sécurité Internet
> Place Volo-Volo
> Tel. : +269 773 18 78
> Mob. + 269 332 30 01
>  
>  
>  
>  
> De : francophonie.icann-request at diffusion.francophonie.org [mailto:francophonie.icann-request at diffusion.francophonie.org] De la part de Pierre Ouedraogo
> Envoyé : vendredi 15 mai 2015 17:10
> À : africann at afrinic.net; francophonie.icann at diffusion.francophonie.org; Linux Afrique; Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum; announce at afrinic.net; afren at afnong.org; afnog at afnog.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Objet : [francophonie.icann] Séminaire international de formation gouvernance de l'internet et des systèmes d'information
>  
> Le gouvernement du Burkina Faso et l’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie organisent avec le soutien de plusieurs institutions et organisations internationales, la première session de formation des formateurs francophones sur la gouvernance de l’Internet et des systèmes d’information  du 20 au 25 juillet 2015 à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso).
>  
> Il s'agira d'une véritable formation de formateurs de l’Afrique francophone regroupant aussi bien des décideurs intervenant dans la  formulation des politiques en matière de développement de l’économie numérique que de techniciens du domaine.  Ces techniciens seront appelés à répéter la formation dans leur pays d'origine. L'objectif final étant de créer une masse critique d'experts très avertis des questions de gouvernance de l'Internet et des systèmes d’information. Cette initiative vise à permettre à l'Afrique francophone de mieux tirer profit de ces technologies et améliorer sa contribution dans les réunions où se discute l’avenir du réseau mondial.
>  
> Les inscriptions sont ouvertes du 15 au 31 mai 2015 et vous pouvez vous inscrire en utilisant le formulaire en ligne:
> http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/index.php/participer-a-l-atelier
>  
> Veuillez noter que les titres de transport aller-retour sont à la charge des participants sélectionnés. L’hébergement et la restauration sont assurés gracieusement par le gouvernement du Burkina Faso pour les participants sélectionnés qui devront assurer eux-mêmes les autres frais liés à leur séjour comme les assurances (maladie, accident, évacuation sanitaire etc.), les extras au niveau de l’hôtel (téléphone, boissons, blanchisserie etc.) et les éventuelles extensions de séjour après le séminaire. Une lettre officielle d’invitation précisant ces points sera envoyée à tous les candidats qui seront retenus.
>  
> Pour plus d’informations, vous pouvez consulter le site du séminaire :
> http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/
> et joindre par courriel le comité d’organisation à l’adresse courrielle ci-dessous:
> iticcbf at gmail.com
>  
> Bien cordialement,
> PO
> --
> Pierre OUEDRAOGO
> Président du comité de pilotage
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AfrICANN mailing list
> AfrICANN at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Barrack O. Otieno
> +254721325277
> +254-20-2498789
> Skype: barrack.otieno
> http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150516/a41ca559/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2022 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150516/a41ca559/attachment.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 cafec3m at yahoo.fr  Sat May 16 11:38:25 2015
From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 15:38:25 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=5BAfrICANN-discuss=5D_RE=3A_=5Bfranco?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?phonie=2Eicann=5D_S=C3=A9minaire_international_de_formation_gou?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?vernance_de_l=27internet_et_des_syst=C3=A8mes_d=27information?=
In-Reply-To: <491CE56B-3005-4757-A6FB-C0D88C27CE77@gmail.com>
References: <491CE56B-3005-4757-A6FB-C0D88C27CE77@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <473500396.331091.1431790705409.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Bonjour Mr PierreMerci pour avoir pris une telle initiative. Cela arrive au moment opportun et très critique avec la montée en flèche des menaces dans le cyberespace.
Toutes mes considérations  
COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC
 ICANN/AFRALO Member
ISOC Member
courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr 
téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 


     Le Samedi 16 mai 2015 15h18, Pierre Ouedraogo <pierre.ouedraogo at gmail.com> a écrit :
   

 Bonjour à tous
Merci pour votre patience.Le site est à nouveau accessible.
CordialementPO

Envoyé de mon iPadPierre OUEDRAOGO 
Le 16 mai 2015 à 14:37, Ahmed Camille Camara <accamara at angeie.gov.gn> a écrit :


<!--#yiv0199211842 _filtered #yiv0199211842 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0199211842 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0199211842 {font-family:Aharoni;panose-1:2 1 8 3 2 1 4 3 2 3;}#yiv0199211842 #yiv0199211842 p.yiv0199211842MsoNormal, #yiv0199211842 li.yiv0199211842MsoNormal, #yiv0199211842 div.yiv0199211842MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";}#yiv0199211842 a:link, #yiv0199211842 span.yiv0199211842MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0199211842 a:visited, #yiv0199211842 span.yiv0199211842MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0199211842 p.yiv0199211842MsoAcetate, #yiv0199211842 li.yiv0199211842MsoAcetate, #yiv0199211842 div.yiv0199211842MsoAcetate {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";}#yiv0199211842 span.yiv0199211842EmailStyle17 {font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;}#yiv0199211842 span.yiv0199211842TextedebullesCar {font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";}#yiv0199211842 .yiv0199211842MsoChpDefault {font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";} _filtered #yiv0199211842 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv0199211842 div.yiv0199211842WordSection1 {}-->Merci bien seulement qu’il est impossible d’accéder au site pour s’y inscrire.  Cdt.  De : africann-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:africann-bounces at afrinic.net] De la part de Barrack Otieno
Envoyé : samedi 16 mai 2015 10:27
À : AfrICANN list
Cc : Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum; afrinic-announce at afrinic.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; afren at afnong.org; francophonie.icann at diffusion.francophonie.org; Linux Afrique; afnog
Objet : Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] RE: [francophonie.icann] Séminaire international de formation gouvernance de l'internet et des systèmes d'information  Congratulations PO and OIF, good to see you are still very active in the community.Regards  2015-05-16 13:10 GMT+03:00 ALI Hadji Mmadi <alihadji at comorestelecom.km>:Bonjour à tous,J’adhère pleinement à cette initiative qui prouve combien la francophonie se prépare pour tourner la page théorique vers une nouvelle page d’actions et de réaction.Bien cordialement.Hadji Mmadi ALI ============================<image001.jpg>Chef du DépartementRegistre et Sécurité InternetPlace Volo-VoloTel. : +269 773 18 78Mob. + 269 332 30 01    De : francophonie.icann-request at diffusion.francophonie.org [mailto:francophonie.icann-request at diffusion.francophonie.org] De la part de Pierre Ouedraogo
Envoyé : vendredi 15 mai 2015 17:10
À : africann at afrinic.net; francophonie.icann at diffusion.francophonie.org; Linux Afrique; Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum; announce at afrinic.net; afren at afnong.org; afnog at afnog.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Objet : [francophonie.icann] Séminaire international de formation gouvernance de l'internet et des systèmes d'information Le gouvernement du Burkina Faso et l’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie organisent avec le soutien de plusieurs institutions et organisations internationales, la première session de formation des formateurs francophones sur la gouvernance de l’Internet et des systèmes d’information  du 20 au 25 juillet 2015 à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). Il s'agira d'une véritable formation de formateurs de l’Afrique francophone regroupant aussi bien des décideurs intervenant dans la  formulation des politiques en matière de développement de l’économie numérique que de techniciens du domaine.  Ces techniciens seront appelés à répéter la formation dans leur pays d'origine. L'objectif final étant de créer une masse critique d'experts très avertis des questions de gouvernance de l'Internet et des systèmes d’information. Cette initiative vise à permettre à l'Afrique francophone de mieux tirer profit de ces technologies et améliorer sa contribution dans les réunions où se discute l’avenir du réseau mondial. Les inscriptions sont ouvertes du 15 au 31 mai 2015 et vous pouvez vous inscrire en utilisant le formulaire en ligne:http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/index.php/participer-a-l-atelier  Veuillez noter que les titres de transport aller-retour sont à la charge des participants sélectionnés. L’hébergement et la restauration sont assurés gracieusement par le gouvernement du Burkina Faso pour les participants sélectionnés qui devront assurer eux-mêmes les autres frais liés à leur séjour comme les assurances (maladie, accident, évacuation sanitaire etc.), les extras au niveau de l’hôtel (téléphone, boissons, blanchisserie etc.) et les éventuelles extensions de séjour après le séminaire. Une lettre officielle d’invitation précisant ces points sera envoyée à tous les candidats qui seront retenus.  Pour plus d’informations, vous pouvez consulter le site du séminaire :http://www.gouvit.iticc.bf/et joindre par courriel le comité d’organisation à l’adresse courrielle ci-dessous:iticcbf at gmail.com Bien cordialement,PO-- Pierre OUEDRAOGOPrésident du comité de pilotage 
_______________________________________________
AfrICANN mailing list
AfrICANN at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann


-- Barrack O. Otieno+254721325277+254-20-2498789
Skype: barrack.otienohttp://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your 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/20150516/ff00add0/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 May 17 09:46:56 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 19:16:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>

Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
Property and the Public Interest' !

Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
Interest' ?

You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, head
of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly argued that
public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.

The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for the
AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal must
incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it be
replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted.  So, in
fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem
to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea
of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
evolution over it!

Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it is
my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area are
either a silent or active accomplices.

Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and
therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets admit it,
such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be misled
by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom up,
private, etc that the social relationships of trade and property, whose
governance continue to be done in democratic fashions... Time we claimed
democratic governance for the Internet as well, and rubbish the
post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking
root in this space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer
to history.

Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG space
has been captured by powerful forces before public interest actors could
assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help in
re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.

Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr
congress.

In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress on
'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those who
may be interested.

parminder

On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
> Property and Public Interest.
>
> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
> might be interested.
>
> Best,
> Geetha.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Swaraj Barooah
> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>
> Dear all,
>
> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
> panels and workshops.
>
> The application form is available now at
> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>
> Deadlines
>
> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>
> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
> submissions will close on November 1st.
>
> Application Information
>
> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
> the form.
>
> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>
> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
> countries.
>
> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>
> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
> policy can best serve the public interest.
>
> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>
> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
> of IP policy and practice.
>
> Participation Opportunities
>
> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>
> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>
> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
> interest.
>
> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
> .
>
> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
> aforementioned sessions.
>
> The application form for participation is available now
> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>
> Organisation
>
> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>
> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>
>
> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>
> Swaraj Barooah
>
> Swaraj Paul Barooah
> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>
> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com>
> Founder, Know-GAP
> Twitter: @swarajpb
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150517/151b2e3f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Sun May 17 11:13:57 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 15:13:57 +0000
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
 <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>


>So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it!

What a curious (mis)reading.

First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would not want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.

Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time to discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could discuss it as a panel if you wish.

It would of course have to be next year.

But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline. Not because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic conception.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org<mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015

Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' !

Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder Interest' ?

You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.

The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it!

Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area are either a silent or active accomplices.

Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history.

Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.

Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr congress.

In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those who may be interested.

parminder

On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and Public Interest.

Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
might be interested.

Best,
Geetha.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Swaraj Barooah
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and the Public Interest, 2015

Dear all,

We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
“Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
applications to participate in the Congress, including session
participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
panels and workshops.

The application form is available now at
[http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.

Deadlines

August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).

November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
submissions will close on November 1st.

Application Information

For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
the form.

For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
any other relevant information provided by the applicant.

Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
countries.

Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
policy can best serve the public interest.

The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.

The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
of IP policy and practice.

Participation Opportunities

Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.

The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.

Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
interest.

The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
.

Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
aforementioned sessions.

The application form for participation is available now
athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com<mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
<mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com><mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.

Organisation

The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/><http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/><http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.

The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/><http://www.openair.org.za/>American
Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/><http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/><http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/><http://www.pijip.org/>at
American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.


On behalf of the organizing committee,

Swaraj Barooah

Swaraj Paul Barooah
Project Manager, "Global Congress"
(Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)

Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com><http://SpicyIP.com>
Founder, Know-GAP
Twitter: @swarajpb

>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


[SG50]
________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150517/a3fa9644/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  Sun May 17 11:25:14 2015
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 11:25:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhavF7LjAGL5WoWdF+_=x+2hGarQE9qVUkMtu4xi7SO_g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 9:46 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:



>
> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and
> therefore its governance has to be different....


The simplest argument is that it HAS been bottom up, open,
transparent, consensus based decision making, etc for the last 40
years.

So it IS and HAS BEEN different since inception, and has been VERY successful.



-- 
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 azrak_khan at hotmail.com  Sun May 17 13:25:57 2015
From: azrak_khan at hotmail.com (azrak_khan at hotmail.com)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 17:25:57 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
 <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BLU406-EAS908F964A919536C3528A9AFFC50@phx.gbl>

Parminder please shed some light on whether civil society is working on public interest or has it become a tool for global organization at times very powerful corporations to pursue their own agendas.
Best,Arzak





        Sent by Outlook for Android





On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:47 AM -0700, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
Property and the Public Interest' !

Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
Interest' ?

You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, head
of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly argued that
public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.

The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for the
AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal must
incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it be
replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted.  So, in
fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem
to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea
of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
evolution over it!

Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it is
my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area are
either a silent or active accomplices.

Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and
therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets admit it,
such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be misled
by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom up,
private, etc that the social relationships of trade and property, whose
governance continue to be done in democratic fashions... Time we claimed
democratic governance for the Internet as well, and rubbish the
post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking
root in this space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer
to history.

Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG space
has been captured by powerful forces before public interest actors could
assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help in
re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.

Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr
congress.

In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress on
'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those who
may be interested.

parminder

On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
> Property and Public Interest.
>
> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
> might be interested.
>
> Best,
> Geetha.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Swaraj Barooah
> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>
> Dear all,
>
> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
> panels and workshops.
>
> The application form is available now at
> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>
> Deadlines
>
> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>
> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
> submissions will close on November 1st.
>
> Application Information
>
> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
> the form.
>
> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>
> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
> countries.
>
> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>
> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
> policy can best serve the public interest.
>
> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>
> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
> of IP policy and practice.
>
> Participation Opportunities
>
> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>
> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>
> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
> interest.
>
> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
> .
>
> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
> aforementioned sessions.
>
> The application form for participation is available now
> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>
> Organisation
>
> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>
> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>
>
> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>
> Swaraj Barooah
>
> Swaraj Paul Barooah
> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>
> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com>
> Founder, Know-GAP
> Twitter: @swarajpb
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150517/9d3e5fdf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun May 17 13:32:20 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 23:02:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <BLU406-EAS908F964A919536C3528A9AFFC50@phx.gbl>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <BLU406-EAS908F964A919536C3528A9AFFC50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <36B1D83F-DB3A-4B73-9251-DAB053B607D2@hserus.net>

“all of civil society”?  If civil society - or the small subset of it that posts here - can’t even achieve consensus on quite a few things, how do you expect it all to be in the pay of faceless corporates and working single mindedly towards whatever corporate goal it is?

Something doesn’t quite compute here.

> On 17-May-2015, at 10:55 pm, azrak_khan at hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> Parminder please shed some light on whether civil society is working on public interest or has it become a tool for global organization at times very powerful corporations to pursue their own agendas.
> 
> Best,
> Arzak 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150517/06c9dda3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sun May 17 14:04:03 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 14:04:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
 <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>

"Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy."

Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not trying to
pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the problem is that everyone
*doesn't* know, or rather that everyone doesn't agree. "Multistakeholder"
seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty" word -
'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
(from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll /
http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php)
I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where the term is
used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used.
Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does
"multistakeholderism"?
Best wishes
Deirdre

On 17 May 2015 at 11:13, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote:

>
>  >So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process
> do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the
> idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
> evolution over it!
>
>  What a curious (mis)reading.
>
>  First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of
> “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would not want
> to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.
>
>  Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic concept
> that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time to discuss it
> before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what multistakeholder is.
> That’s easy. But public interest—we could discuss it as a panel if you wish.
>
>  It would of course have to be next year.
>
>  But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline. Not
> because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic conception.
>
>  Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
>   From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net>
> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net>
> Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org"
> <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>
>  Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
> Property and the Public Interest' !
>
> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
> Interest' ?
>
> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, head
> of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly argued that
> public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but multistakeholder
> perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>
> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for the
> AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal must
> incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it be
> replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted.  So, in
> fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to
> think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of
> 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
> evolution over it!
>
> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it is my
> duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area are either a
> silent or active accomplices.
>
> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and
> therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets admit it, such
> an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be misled by it -
> the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom up, private, etc that
> the social relationships of trade and property, whose governance continue
> to be done in democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance
> for the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic
> multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this space,
> for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history.
>
> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for the
> big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What really is
> the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG space has been
> captured by powerful forces before public interest actors could assert
> themselves. Civil society in this area must help in re-democraticing this
> area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>
> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr
> congress.
>
> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress on
> 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those who may
> be interested.
>
> parminder
>
> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>
> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
> Property and Public Interest.
>
> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
> might be interested.
>
> Best,
> Geetha.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Swaraj Barooah
> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>
> Dear all,
>
> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
> panels and workshops.
>
> The application form is available now at
> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>
> Deadlines
>
> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>
> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
> submissions will close on November 1st.
>
> Application Information
>
> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
> the form.
>
> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>
> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
> countries.
>
> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>
> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
> policy can best serve the public interest.
>
> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>
> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
> of IP policy and practice.
>
> Participation Opportunities
>
> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>
> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>
> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
> interest.
>
> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
> .
>
> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
> aforementioned sessions.
>
> The application form for participation is available now
> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com> <globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>
> Organisation
>
> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>
> <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/> <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>
> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>
> <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/> <http://americanassembly.org/>at
> Columbia University in New
> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/> <http://www.openair.org.za/>.,
> and theProgram on
> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>
> <http://www.pijip.org/>at
> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>
>
> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>
> Swaraj Barooah
>
> Swaraj Paul Barooah
> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>
> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
> Founder, Know-GAP
> Twitter: @swarajpb
>
>  >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>  [image: SG50]
> ------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and
> may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose
> its contents.
> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150517/b77e113a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Sun May 17 15:48:32 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 21:48:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] [JNC - Forum] Call for Participation: Global
 Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
 <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYr-n6Ny-T3f-B8HUjUNF0rNSJD2Ripk4AZPgvAhSqMcuw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That's easy."
>
> Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not trying
> to pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the problem is that everyone
> *doesn't* know, or rather that everyone doesn't agree. "Multistakeholder"
> seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty" word -
> 'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it
> means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
> (from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll /
> http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php)
> I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where the term is
> used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used.
> Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does
> "multistakeholderism"?
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
> The most stable definition:   *Fig leaf for US dominance*
  .
Louis
- - -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150517/88bb2005/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Sun May 17 21:15:06 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 01:15:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
 <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
 <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>

Deirdre,

Google multistakeholder.https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=multistakeholder&oq=multistakeholder&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j69i65l2.2580j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and where he distinguishes between types even.

The second entry is a glossary entry from APC.

The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.

Like many words, there is a “core” meaning and moving beyond that, more than 50 shades of greying that keeps academics employed.

Regards,
Ang Peng Hwa

From: Williams Deirde <williams.deirdre at gmail.com<mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 2:04 am
To: Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>
Cc: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org<mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015

"Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy."

Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not trying to pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the problem is that everyone doesn't know, or rather that everyone doesn't agree. "Multistakeholder" seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty" word -
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
(from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll /http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php)
I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where the term is used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used.
Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does "multistakeholderism"?
Best wishes
Deirdre

On 17 May 2015 at 11:13, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>> wrote:

>So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it!

What a curious (mis)reading.

First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would not want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.

Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time to discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could discuss it as a panel if you wish.

It would of course have to be next year.

But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline. Not because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic conception.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org<mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015

Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' !

Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder Interest' ?

You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.

The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it!

Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area are either a silent or active accomplices.

Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history.

Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.

Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr congress.

In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those who may be interested.

parminder

On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and Public Interest.

Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
might be interested.

Best,
Geetha.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Swaraj Barooah
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and the Public Interest, 2015

Dear all,

We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
“Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
applications to participate in the Congress, including session
participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
panels and workshops.

The application form is available now at
[http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.

Deadlines

August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).

November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
submissions will close on November 1st.

Application Information

For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
the form.

For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
any other relevant information provided by the applicant.

Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
countries.

Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
policy can best serve the public interest.

The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.

The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
of IP policy and practice.

Participation Opportunities

Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.

The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.

Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
interest.

The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
.

Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
aforementioned sessions.

The application form for participation is available now
athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com<mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
<mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com><mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.

Organisation

The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/><http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/><http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.

The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/><http://www.openair.org.za/>American
Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/><http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/><http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/><http://www.pijip.org/>at
American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.


On behalf of the organizing committee,

Swaraj Barooah

Swaraj Paul Barooah
Project Manager, "Global Congress"
(Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)

Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com><http://SpicyIP.com>
Founder, Know-GAP
Twitter: @swarajpb

>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


[SG50]
________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.

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

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

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




--
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/6bfcdb0a/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  Sun May 17 21:29:58 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 06:59:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] [JNC - Forum] Call for Participation: Global
 Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYr-n6Ny-T3f-B8HUjUNF0rNSJD2Ripk4AZPgvAhSqMcuw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYr-n6Ny-T3f-B8HUjUNF0rNSJD2Ripk4AZPgvAhSqMcuw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8EE7E123-ABFA-460C-8DB0-841C3B8752C9@hserus.net>

On 18-May-2015, at 1:18 am, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> 
> The most stable definition:   Fig leaf for US dominance

People say that all the time.  But then there are people in the USA who think Obama is out to send the US army into Texas to conquer it and put it under martial law.

—srs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/1be28d46/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 May 17 23:18:19 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 08:48:19 +0530
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxhavF7LjAGL5WoWdF+_=x+2hGarQE9qVUkMtu4xi7SO_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxhavF7LjAGL5WoWdF+_=x+2hGarQE9qVUkMtu4xi7SO_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <555959FB.9090403@itforchange.net>



On Sunday 17 May 2015 08:55 PM, McTim wrote:
> snip

> The simplest argument is that it HAS been bottom up, open,
> transparent, consensus based decision making, etc for the last 40
> years. So it IS and HAS BEEN different since inception, and has been
> VERY successful. 

For more that 4000 years trade has been based on rules that were
developed mutually among trade guilds, in a rather bottom up and
consensual, and, among them, open and transparent ways  ..... That did
not stop trade (or property)  from currently being governed by
democratic, national and global, means, and I hear no argument that
trade and property be governed by multistakeholder means. (Although I
know, as multistakeholder-ism makes progress in the IG space, such
proposals will surface. That is the plan.)

The argument you give is part of a pack of make-believes that is bandied
around  - included through numerous well -funded 'capacity building' and
such initiatives financed by the powerful -
to give respectability to a model that serves the powerful and the
status quo. As you can see above there is no basis of Internet
exceptionalism of the kind you argue... parminder



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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun May 17 23:07:33 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 08:37:33 +0530
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <55595775.8050901@itforchange.net>



On Sunday 17 May 2015 08:43 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>
> >So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think
> that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of
> 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
> evolution over it!
>
> What a curious (mis)reading.

Rather more curious, Dear Peng Hwa, is that after you call my reading
curious you repeat exactly what I have read.

Direct quotes from your below email:   "public interest is a problematic
concept" AND "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is".

Whereby, I understand you justify why the APrIGF call uses
'multistakeholder perspective' and did not agree to use 'public
interest'. I dont see what or where I mis-read..

parminder
>
> First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of
> “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would not
> want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.
>
> Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic
> concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time to
> discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what
> multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could discuss
> it as a panel if you wish.
>
> It would of course have to be next year.
>
> But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline. Not
> because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic conception.
>
> Regards, 
> Peng Hwa
>
> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
> "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org
> <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>
> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
> Property and the Public Interest' !
>
> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
> Interest' ?
>
> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>
> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal
> must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it
> be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted. 
> So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process
> do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and
> the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive
> political evolution over it!
>
> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>
> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and
> therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets admit it,
> such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be
> misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom
> up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and property,
> whose governance continue to be done in democratic fashions... Time we
> claimed democratic governance for the Internet as well, and rubbish
> the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly
> taking root in this space, for which the IG civil society will have to
> answer to history.
>
> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>
> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr
> congress.
>
> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
> who may be interested.
>
> parminder
>
> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>> Property and Public Interest.
>>
>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>> might be interested.
>>
>> Best,
>> Geetha.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
>> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>> panels and workshops.
>>
>> The application form is available now at
>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>
>> Deadlines
>>
>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>
>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>
>> Application Information
>>
>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>> the form.
>>
>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>
>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>> countries.
>>
>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>
>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>
>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>
>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>> of IP policy and practice.
>>
>> Participation Opportunities
>>
>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>
>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>
>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>> interest.
>>
>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>> .
>>
>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>> aforementioned sessions.
>>
>> The application form for participation is available now
>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>
>> Organisation
>>
>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>
>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>
>>
>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>
>> Swaraj Barooah
>>
>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>
>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com>
>> Founder, Know-GAP
>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> SG50
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named
> and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or
> disclose its contents.
> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/bf1281be/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 May 17 23:28:02 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 08:58:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net>

Peng Hwa

Since you seem to rely on wikipedia, before declaring that although
'everyone knows what knows what multi stakeholder is' 'public interest
is a problematic concept' (both direct quotes from your email) did you
look up 'public interest' in wikipedia? Well, here it is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest

A comparative assessment of the two entries in wikipedia - respectively
on MSism (multistakeholderism) and public interest - would make clear
which one is clearer and less contested term.

Which in turn clearly proves that an assertion in favour of 'clarity' of
the MS term with respect to the 'public interest' term is not based on
any kind of facts or on existing body of civilisational knoweldge . It
is merely ideological, which was my prior point. And the fact that a
regional IGF process takes such a bias as a given - and does not correct
itself even when the 'error' is pointed out  - makes a important
political point, which is the political point that I have been trying to
make..

parminder

On Monday 18 May 2015 06:45 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Deirdre,
>
> Google
> multistakeholder.https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=multistakeholder&oq=multistakeholder&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j69i65l2.2580j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8
>
> The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and where he
> distinguishes between types even.
>
> The second entry is a glossary entry from APC. 
>
> The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.
>
> Like many words, there is a “core” meaning and moving beyond that,
> more than 50 shades of greying that keeps academics employed.
>
> Regards, 
> Ang Peng Hwa
>
> From: Williams Deirde <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>>
> Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 2:04 am
> To: Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Ang Peng Hwa
> <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>
> Cc: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>, BestBitsList
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
> "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org
> <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>
> "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy."
>
> Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not
> trying to pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the problem is
> that everyone /doesn't/ know, or rather that everyone doesn't agree.
> "Multistakeholder" seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty" word -
> 'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
> 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
> (from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll
> /http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php)
> I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where the term
> is used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used.
> Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does
> "multistakeholderism"?
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
> On 17 May 2015 at 11:13, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg
> <mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>> wrote:
>
>
>     >So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process
>     do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept,
>     and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a
>     positive political evolution over it!
>
>     What a curious (mis)reading.
>
>     First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of
>     “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would
>     not want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.
>
>     Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic
>     concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time
>     to discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what
>     multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could
>     discuss it as a panel if you wish.
>
>     It would of course have to be next year.
>
>     But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline.
>     Not because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic
>     conception.
>
>     Regards, 
>     Peng Hwa
>
>     From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>     Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>     <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
>     <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>     Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
>     To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>     <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList
>     <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition.
>     Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
>     Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress
>     on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>
>     Interesting theme of this series of global congresses:
>     'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' !
>
>     Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the
>     multistakeholder Interest' ?
>
>     You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng
>     Hwa, head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who
>     strongly argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear
>     concept but multistakeholder perspective or interest is much
>     easier to establish.
>
>     The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops
>     for the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>     proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>     suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This
>     suggestion was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant
>     groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public
>     interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of
>     'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
>     evolution over it!
>
>     Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which,
>     it is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG
>     area are either a silent or active accomplices.
>
>     Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>     intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>     and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>     admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are
>     intent to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is
>     no more bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of
>     trade and property, whose governance continue to be done in
>     democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for
>     the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic
>     multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this
>     space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history.
>
>     Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and
>     public interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal
>     space for the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG
>     meeting... What really is the difference, other than that the
>     discourse in the IG space has been captured by powerful forces
>     before public interest actors could assert themselves. Civil
>     society in this area must help in re-democraticing this area, and
>     reclaiming 'public interest'.
>
>     Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>     importanr congress.
>
>     In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global
>     congress on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to
>     talk to those who may be interested.
>
>     parminder
>
>     On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>     PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on
>>     Intellectual
>>     Property and Public Interest.
>>
>>     Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>     might be interested.
>>
>>     Best,
>>     Geetha.
>>
>>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>     From: Swaraj Barooah
>>     Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>     Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>     Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>     edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the
>>     Public
>>     Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress
>>     will be
>>     “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now
>>     inviting
>>     applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>     participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>     panels and workshops.
>>
>>     The application form is available now at
>>     [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note
>>     that this
>>     form is for application purposes, and does not amount to
>>     confirmation of
>>     participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>     open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global
>>     Congress.
>>
>>     Deadlines
>>
>>     August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>     considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>     being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>     receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>     circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>
>>     November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>     submissions will close on November 1st.
>>
>>     Application Information
>>
>>     For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>     workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be
>>     submitted in
>>     the form.
>>
>>     For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend
>>     sessions as
>>     discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose
>>     and/or
>>     any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>
>>     Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>     Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>     countries.
>>
>>     Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>
>>     The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>     Interest is
>>     the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>     advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>     perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>     experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are
>>     empowered to
>>     put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>     began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in
>>     2012, and
>>     was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>     held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>     convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>     practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the
>>     world's most
>>     populous region to these global debates around how intellectual
>>     property
>>     policy can best serve the public interest.
>>
>>     The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research,
>>     civil
>>     society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities
>>     together
>>     for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>     property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are
>>     rare but
>>     valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>     The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December,
>>     2015 in
>>     New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>
>>     The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>     Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection,
>>     revision, and
>>     further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to
>>     produce
>>     three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly
>>     research
>>     directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business
>>     leaders and
>>     policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>     second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>     research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy
>>     agenda;
>>     and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary,
>>     cross-sector and
>>     global networked community of experts focused on public interest
>>     aspects
>>     of IP policy and practice.
>>
>>     Participation Opportunities
>>
>>     Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>     plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the
>>     room of
>>     scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>     cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>
>>     The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2)
>>     Access
>>     to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>
>>     Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>     order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>     interest.
>>
>>     The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research
>>     outputs such
>>     as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>     thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global
>>     Congress
>>     .
>>
>>     Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing
>>     conference
>>     papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they
>>     may share
>>     their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>     aforementioned sessions.
>>
>>     The application form for participation is available now
>>     athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward
>>     this
>>     invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more
>>     information or
>>     questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
>>     <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
>>     <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>
>>     Organisation
>>
>>     The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>
>>     <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>     convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>     Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law
>>     University,
>>     Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/> <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>
>>     The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>
>>     <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>     Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>
>>     <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>     York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>
>>     <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>     Information Justice and Intellectual Property
>>     <http://www.pijip.org/> <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>     American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>
>>
>>     On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>
>>     Swaraj Barooah
>>
>>     Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>     Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>     (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>
>>     Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>     <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>     Founder, Know-GAP
>>     Twitter: @swarajpb
>>
>     >
>     >
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > 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
>
>
>     SG50
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s)
>     named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not
>     the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not
>     copy, use, or disclose its contents.
>     Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>     <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/25f5afe7/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 May 17 23:39:17 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 09:09:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <BLU406-EAS908F964A919536C3528A9AFFC50@phx.gbl>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <BLU406-EAS908F964A919536C3528A9AFFC50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <55595EE5.5070507@itforchange.net>



On Sunday 17 May 2015 10:55 PM, azrak_khan at hotmail.com wrote:
> Parminder please shed some light on whether civil society is working
> on public interest or has it become a tool for global organization at
> times very powerful corporations to pursue their own agendas. 

Arzak, since you ask a clear and direct question I would give a clear
and honest response. My apologies if it makes some people here unhappy. 
In my view, yes, the manner in which much of global civil society has
worked in the IG space, it has served the agenda of the powerful
corporations. The most important way this happens is through its
promotion of a deliberately confusing and unclear MS model of governance
whose real purpose is to not let any real and effective governance of
the Internet and the larger information society space take root, which
of course is the agenda of the most powerful players in the field - the
big global corporations backed by the US government.

I keep making this point, hoping to contribute to some kind of course
correction.

parminder
>
> Best,
> Arzak 
>
>
> Sent by Outlook <http://taps.io/outlookmobile> for Android
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:47 AM -0700, "parminder"
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
> Property and the Public Interest' !
>
> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
> Interest' ?
>
> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>
> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal
> must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it
> be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted. 
> So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process
> do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and
> the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive
> political evolution over it!
>
> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>
> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and
> therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets admit it,
> such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be
> misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom
> up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and property,
> whose governance continue to be done in democratic fashions... Time we
> claimed democratic governance for the Internet as well, and rubbish
> the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly
> taking root in this space, for which the IG civil society will have to
> answer to history.
>
> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>
> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr
> congress.
>
> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
> who may be interested.
>
> parminder
>
> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>> Property and Public Interest.
>>
>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>> might be interested.
>>
>> Best,
>> Geetha.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
>> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>> panels and workshops.
>>
>> The application form is available now at
>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>
>> Deadlines
>>
>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>
>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>
>> Application Information
>>
>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>> the form.
>>
>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>
>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>> countries.
>>
>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>
>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>
>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>
>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>> of IP policy and practice.
>>
>> Participation Opportunities
>>
>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>
>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>
>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>> interest.
>>
>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>> .
>>
>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>> aforementioned sessions.
>>
>> The application form for participation is available now
>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>
>> Organisation
>>
>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>
>> <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/> <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>
>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>
>> <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>
>> <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>
>> <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>
>> <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>
>>
>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>
>> Swaraj Barooah
>>
>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>
>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>> Founder, Know-GAP
>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> <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/
> >
> > 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/20150518/9e69dea6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Sun May 17 23:40:19 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 03:40:19 +0000
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <55595775.8050901@itforchange.net>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
 <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
 <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595775.8050901@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D17F7FEE.40874%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>

Parminder,

There is no agreement that public interest is a problematic concept.

It’s your interpretation of the term not being featured in at APrIGF that is curious.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 11:07 am
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org<mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015



On Sunday 17 May 2015 08:43 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:

>So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it!

What a curious (mis)reading.

Rather more curious, Dear Peng Hwa, is that after you call my reading curious you repeat exactly what I have read.

Direct quotes from your below email:   "public interest is a problematic concept" AND "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is".

Whereby, I understand you justify why the APrIGF call uses 'multistakeholder perspective' and did not agree to use 'public interest'. I dont see what or where I mis-read..

parminder

First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would not want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.

Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time to discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could discuss it as a panel if you wish.

It would of course have to be next year.

But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline. Not because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic conception.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org"<mailto:Forum at Justnetcoalition.Org> <forum at justnetcoalition.org<mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015

Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' !

Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder Interest' ?

You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.

The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it!

Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area are either a silent or active accomplices.

Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history.

Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.

Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr congress.

In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those who may be interested.

parminder

On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and Public Interest.

Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
might be interested.

Best,
Geetha.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Swaraj Barooah
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and the Public Interest, 2015

Dear all,

We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
“Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
applications to participate in the Congress, including session
participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
panels and workshops.

The application form is available now at
[http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.

Deadlines

August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).

November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
submissions will close on November 1st.

Application Information

For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
the form.

For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
any other relevant information provided by the applicant.

Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
countries.

Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
policy can best serve the public interest.

The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.

The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
of IP policy and practice.

Participation Opportunities

Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.

The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.

Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
interest.

The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
.

Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
aforementioned sessions.

The application form for participation is available now
athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com<mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
<mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com><mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.

Organisation

The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/><http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/><http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.

The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/><http://www.openair.org.za/>American
Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/><http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/><http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/><http://www.pijip.org/>at
American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.


On behalf of the organizing committee,

Swaraj Barooah

Swaraj Paul Barooah
Project Manager, "Global Congress"
(Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)

Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com><http://SpicyIP.com>
Founder, Know-GAP
Twitter: @swarajpb

>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


[SG50]
________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.


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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/5a0bd42c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Sun May 17 23:45:24 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 03:45:24 +0000
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
 <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
 <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>

Parminder,

I did not just rely on Wikipedia. (That would be another n of 1.)

My point was to reply to the question: Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition?

>The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and where he distinguishes between types even.
>The second entry is a glossary entry from APC.
>The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.

There is another common factor in the APC and the ICANNWiki entries: there is no glossary entry for public interest in either of them.

I leave you to interpret what that means.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 11:28 am
To: Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>, Williams Deirde <williams.deirdre at gmail.com<mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>>, Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
Cc: BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org<mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015

Peng Hwa

Since you seem to rely on wikipedia, before declaring that although 'everyone knows what knows what multi stakeholder is' 'public interest is a problematic concept' (both direct quotes from your email) did you look up 'public interest' in wikipedia? Well, here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest

A comparative assessment of the two entries in wikipedia - respectively on MSism (multistakeholderism) and public interest - would make clear which one is clearer and less contested term.

Which in turn clearly proves that an assertion in favour of 'clarity' of the MS term with respect to the 'public interest' term is not based on any kind of facts or on existing body of civilisational knoweldge . It is merely ideological, which was my prior point. And the fact that a regional IGF process takes such a bias as a given - and does not correct itself even when the 'error' is pointed out  - makes a important political point, which is the political point that I have been trying to make..

parminder

On Monday 18 May 2015 06:45 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
Deirdre,

Google multistakeholder.https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=multistakeholder&oq=multistakeholder&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j69i65l2.2580j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and where he distinguishes between types even.

The second entry is a glossary entry from APC.

The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.

Like many words, there is a “core” meaning and moving beyond that, more than 50 shades of greying that keeps academics employed.

Regards,
Ang Peng Hwa

From: Williams Deirde <williams.deirdre at gmail.com<mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 2:04 am
To: Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>
Cc: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org"<mailto:Forum at Justnetcoalition.Org> <forum at justnetcoalition.org<mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015

"Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy."

Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not trying to pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the problem is that everyone doesn't know, or rather that everyone doesn't agree. "Multistakeholder" seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty" word -
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
(from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll /http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php)
I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where the term is used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used.
Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does "multistakeholderism"?
Best wishes
Deirdre

On 17 May 2015 at 11:13, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>> wrote:

>So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it!

What a curious (mis)reading.

First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would not want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.

Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time to discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could discuss it as a panel if you wish.

It would of course have to be next year.

But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline. Not because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic conception.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org"<mailto:Forum at Justnetcoalition.Org> <forum at justnetcoalition.org<mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015

Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' !

Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder Interest' ?

You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.

The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it!

Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area are either a silent or active accomplices.

Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history.

Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.

Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr congress.

In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those who may be interested.

parminder

On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and Public Interest.

Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
might be interested.

Best,
Geetha.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Swaraj Barooah
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and the Public Interest, 2015

Dear all,

We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
“Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
applications to participate in the Congress, including session
participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
panels and workshops.

The application form is available now at
[http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.

Deadlines

August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).

November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
submissions will close on November 1st.

Application Information

For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
the form.

For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
any other relevant information provided by the applicant.

Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
countries.

Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
policy can best serve the public interest.

The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.

The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
of IP policy and practice.

Participation Opportunities

Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.

The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.

Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
interest.

The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
.

Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
aforementioned sessions.

The application form for participation is available now
athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com<mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
<mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com><mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.

Organisation

The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/><http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/><http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.

The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/><http://www.openair.org.za/>American
Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/><http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/><http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/><http://www.pijip.org/>at
American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.


On behalf of the organizing committee,

Swaraj Barooah

Swaraj Paul Barooah
Project Manager, "Global Congress"
(Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)

Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com><http://SpicyIP.com>
Founder, Know-GAP
Twitter: @swarajpb

>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


[SG50]
________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.

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

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

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




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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/a06fdc77/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 May 17 23:53:05 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 09:23:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <D17F7FEE.40874%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595775.8050901@itforchange.net> <D17F7FEE.40874%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <55596221.4060409@itforchange.net>



On Monday 18 May 2015 09:10 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> There is no agreement that public interest is a problematic concept.

I am sure everyone can read for themselves the emails that you wrote
since yesterday and in the earlier discussion we had on these lists 2nd
and 3rd April on exactly this point. It is difficult for me to sustain a
discussion if you first strongly push an argument that then say that is
not the argument.
>
> It’s your interpretation of the term not being featured in at APrIGF
> that is curious.

My interpretation!! I objected to the manner the term was used in the
AprIGF call forwarded by Anja. Anja never responded, neither did other
people associated with APrIGF many of them being on this list. You
responded by saying that 'public interest is not a clear term' but it is
easy to understand and arrive at what is multistakeholder perspective.
And now you are calling it my interpretation. I am really confounded.

parminder
>
> Regards, 
> Peng Hwa
>
> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 11:07 am
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Ang Peng Hwa
> <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>, BestBitsList
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
> "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org
> <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>
>
>
> On Sunday 17 May 2015 08:43 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>>
>> >So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to
>> think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea
>> of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
>> evolution over it!
>>
>> What a curious (mis)reading.
>
> Rather more curious, Dear Peng Hwa, is that after you call my reading
> curious you repeat exactly what I have read.
>
> Direct quotes from your below email:   "public interest is a
> problematic concept" AND "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is".
>
> Whereby, I understand you justify why the APrIGF call uses
> 'multistakeholder perspective' and did not agree to use 'public
> interest'. I dont see what or where I mis-read..
>
> parminder
>>
>> First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of
>> “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would not
>> want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.
>>
>> Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic
>> concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time to
>> discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what
>> multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could
>> discuss it as a panel if you wish.
>>
>> It would of course have to be next year.
>>
>> But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline. Not
>> because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic
>> conception.
>>
>> Regards, 
>> Peng Hwa
>>
>> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
>> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
>> "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org
>> <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
>> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>
>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>
>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>> Interest' ?
>>
>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>
>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>
>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>
>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>> society will have to answer to history.
>>
>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>
>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>> importanr congress.
>>
>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>> who may be interested.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>
>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>> might be interested.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Geetha.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
>>> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>> panels and workshops.
>>>
>>> The application form is available now at
>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>
>>> Deadlines
>>>
>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>
>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>
>>> Application Information
>>>
>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>> the form.
>>>
>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>
>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>
>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>
>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>
>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>
>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>
>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>
>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>
>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>> .
>>>
>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>
>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>
>>> Organisation
>>>
>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>
>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>
>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>
>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>
>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> SG50
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s)
>> named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use,
>> or disclose its contents.
>> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/c9ee575e/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  Mon May 18 04:32:44 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 10:32:44 +0200
Subject: [governance] [JNC - Forum] Call for Participation: Global
  Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYr-n6Ny-T3f-B8HUjUNF0rNSJD2Ripk4AZPgvAhSqMcuw@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
 <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
 <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
 <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYr-n6Ny-T3f-B8HUjUNF0rNSJD2Ripk4AZPgvAhSqMcuw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1YuGTJ-0005ky-1H@igcaucus.org>

At 21:48 17/05/2015, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>The most stable definition:   Fig leaf for US dominance

I would may be a little more precise in adding: "under WallStreet/WEF 
control". I suppose that some of our Yankee Friends would prefer. May 
be could we even talk of "Occupied America" and consider the attempts 
of the American Patriotic Resistance subject to the "Patriot Act", as 
we will be by the French Super Patriot Act.

jfc


>   .
>Louis
>- - -
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/6d192549/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon May 18 09:34:18 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 09:34:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
 <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7O8L350uTseResh-JhiDV4boPv8U=Hktv7s5ZNFe6Y7g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Ang Peng Hwa,
I am uncomfortable with a word that is defined so often in terms of itself
and yet has become prescriptive.
It is interesting that the Chair's Statement from the Global Conference on
Cyberspace
<https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf>
managed to avoid using "multistakeholder" and "stakeholder" for the section
on Capacity Building (paragraphs 48-51, pp 8,9)
The "more than 50 shades of greying that keeps academics employed" - well
at least the term is serving some useful purpose? :-)
Best wishes
Deirdre

On 17 May 2015 at 21:15, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote:

>   Deirdre,
>
>  Google multistakeholder.
> https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=multistakeholder&oq=multistakeholder&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j69i65l2.2580j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8
>
>  The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and where he
> distinguishes between types even.
>
>  The second entry is a glossary entry from APC.
>
>  The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.
>
>  Like many words, there is a “core” meaning and moving beyond that, more
> than 50 shades of greying that keeps academics employed.
>
>  Regards,
>   Ang Peng Hwa
>
>   From: Williams Deirde <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 2:04 am
> To: Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Ang Peng Hwa <
> tphang at ntu.edu.sg>
> Cc: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net>, BestBitsList <
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <
> forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>
>   "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy."
>
>  Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not trying
> to pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the problem is that everyone
> *doesn't* know, or rather that everyone doesn't agree. "Multistakeholder"
> seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty" word -
> 'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it
> means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
> (from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll /
> http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php)
> I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where the term is
> used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used.
> Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does
> "multistakeholderism"?
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
> On 17 May 2015 at 11:13, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote:
>
>>
>>  >So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process
>> do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the
>> idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
>> evolution over it!
>>
>>  What a curious (mis)reading.
>>
>>  First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of
>> “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would not want
>> to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.
>>
>>  Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic
>> concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time to
>> discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what
>> multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could discuss it
>> as a panel if you wish.
>>
>>  It would of course have to be next year.
>>
>>  But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline. Not
>> because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic conception.
>>
>>  Regards,
>> Peng Hwa
>>
>>   From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net>
>> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
>> Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net>
>> Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
>> BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition.
>> Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
>> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>
>>  Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>
>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>> Interest' ?
>>
>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, head
>> of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly argued that
>> public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but multistakeholder
>> perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>
>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for the
>> AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal must
>> incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it be
>> replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted.  So, in
>> fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to
>> think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of
>> 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
>> evolution over it!
>>
>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it is
>> my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area are
>> either a silent or active accomplices.
>>
>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and
>> therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets admit it, such
>> an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be misled by it -
>> the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom up, private, etc that
>> the social relationships of trade and property, whose governance continue
>> to be done in democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance
>> for the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic
>> multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this space,
>> for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history.
>>
>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for the
>> big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What really is
>> the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG space has been
>> captured by powerful forces before public interest actors could assert
>> themselves. Civil society in this area must help in re-democraticing this
>> area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>
>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr
>> congress.
>>
>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress on
>> 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those who may
>> be interested.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>
>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>> Property and Public Interest.
>>
>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>> might be interested.
>>
>> Best,
>> Geetha.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
>> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>> panels and workshops.
>>
>> The application form is available now at
>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>
>> Deadlines
>>
>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>
>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>
>> Application Information
>>
>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>> the form.
>>
>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>
>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>> countries.
>>
>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>
>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>
>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>
>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>> of IP policy and practice.
>>
>> Participation Opportunities
>>
>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>
>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>
>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>> interest.
>>
>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>> .
>>
>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>> aforementioned sessions.
>>
>> The application form for participation is available now
>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com> <globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>
>> Organisation
>>
>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>
>> <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/> <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>
>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>
>> <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/> <http://americanassembly.org/>at
>> Columbia University in New
>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/> <http://www.openair.org.za/>.,
>> and theProgram on
>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>
>> <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>
>>
>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>
>> Swaraj Barooah
>>
>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>
>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>> Founder, Know-GAP
>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>
>>  >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>   [image: SG50]
>> ------------------------------
>> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named
>> and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose
>> its contents.
>> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/ee36803b/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  Mon May 18 12:31:02 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 12:31:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: The Future of the Internet in the Wake
 of Charlie Hebdo and Increased Government Surveillance Online
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0zS9QgV84avj+RztRPmWx+vSDkOGxmj7H9RZvmnOoeXw@mail.gmail.com>

Our 2nd stream out of DC today (along with IPNSIG
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/IPN-ISOC-2>) - this one a bit more
down-to-earth - as Bruce Schneier & Chris Riley update the surveillance
outlook. Just about to start.

 joly posted: "On Thursday May 14 and Friday May 15 2015 the  Columbia
University School of International and Public Affairs(SIPA) and the Global
Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) will present the Conference on
Internet Governance and Cyber-Security at Columbia U"


[image: isocdc]
<http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/surveillance>Today *Monday
May 18 2015* the Institute for International Economic Policy at The George
Washington University <http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/> (IIEP) and the Greater
Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society <http://isoc-dc.org/> (ISOC-DC)
will jointly host *The Future of the Internet in the Wake of Charlie Hebdo
and Increased Government Surveillance Online
<http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/events/Future_of_Internet_Charlie_Hebdo/>* – a
lunchtime discussion between *Bruce Schneier*, noted authority on
cybersecurity and *Chris Riley*, Vice President and Head of Public Policy
at Mozilla, on how increasing surveillance and use of malware could impact
the future of the Internet. The event will webcast live on the *Internet
Society #2 Livestream Channel
<http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/surveillance>*.





*What: The Future of the Internet in the Wake of Charlie Hebdo and
Increased Government Surveillance Online
<http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/events/Future_of_Internet_Charlie_Hebdo/>Where:
GWU, Washington DCWhen: Monday May 18 2015 12:30-2pm EDT | 16:30-18:00
UTCWebcast: http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/surveillance
<http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/surveillance>Twitter: @IIEPGW
<https://twitter.com/search?q=iiepgw&src=typd&vertical=default&f=tweets>|
@isocdc
<https://twitter.com/search?q=isocdc&src=typd&vertical=default&f=tweets>*




*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7784




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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/20150518/28156c78/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon May 18 13:29:35 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 13:29:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: The Future of the Internet in the
 Wake of Charlie Hebdo and Increased Government Surveillance Online
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk0zS9QgV84avj+RztRPmWx+vSDkOGxmj7H9RZvmnOoeXw@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAM9VJk0zS9QgV84avj+RztRPmWx+vSDkOGxmj7H9RZvmnOoeXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150518172935.5300307.13137.12921@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/ed5417c5/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  Mon May 18 13:32:27 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 13:32:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
	<5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
	<55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
	<D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21850.8747.820474.814826@world.std.com>


You can't have an operational definition of "multistakeholderism"
without some process to define it such as enfranchisement in a
governance body.

One could argue that ICANN has done that via its by-laws. The board of
directors recognizes certain groups as groups of enfranchised
stakeholders for each group's stated purpose: Address Supporting
Organization (ASO), Country-Code Names Supporting Organization
(CCNSO), Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Advisory
Committees (AC, such as GAC, SSAC, RSSAC, ALAC), and then other,
board, and temporary committees.

They're narrowly focused (other than perhaps the GAC) on ICANN's core
mission: Names, numbers, and the stability and operations thereof.

Nonetheless the process is led by a board of directors chosen by a
nominating committee consisting primarily of members of those
organizations, or external organizations given a seat by that board
(with their own processes for choosing directors), who can approve
enfranchised stakeholder groups.

Within each of those groups there are other stakeholder groups
approved by those groups' leadership and noted in the by-laws who are
enfranchised to participate in the groups' decision-making.

For exmaple within GNSO there are the Registries and Regstrars
stakeholder groups (SGs), Business Constituency SG, Intellectual
Property SG, Internet Service Providers SG, Non-Commercial Users
Constituency. And so forth.

It's all in the by-laws and apologies in advance if I made any small
errors but I think that's the gist of it.

One could argue it's rather top-down in that substantive top-level
changes must get through approval by the board of directors. There's
no process that I know of, for example, to over-ride the board's
decisions on such structures though there is a fair amount of latitude
within each group pertaining to their own leadership, agenda, process
structures, etc.

But, for example, I believe the board could in theory dissolve an
entire Supporting Organization and by implication any enfranchisement
of their stakeholder groups via a board vote with no formal challenge
process (no involuntary override) possible.

One can submit a "reconsideration request" and/or ask for an
Independent Review Process Panel (IRP) but it's all gated by board
members (via the Board Governance Committee) or the board acting as a
whole -- approving such panels and their membership, taking action on
their recommendations or not, etc.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*

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

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Mon May 18 13:48:33 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 19:48:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <21850.8747.820474.814826@world.std.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <21850.8747.820474.814826@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <11D2A398-F9DB-418B-910A-96273A8AF6E2@consensus.pro>

Dear Barry, and all, for what it is worth this discussion has been had in the sustainable development (Rio+ 5/10/20) process for much longer even than it has been had in the WSIS context. For those interested, I think you'll find some very useful work there on this subject that you can leverage which might make this somewhat eternal argument easier to - hopefully - resolve.

On 18 May 2015, at 19:32, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:

> 
> You can't have an operational definition of "multistakeholderism"
> without some process to define it such as enfranchisement in a
> governance body.
> 
> One could argue that ICANN has done that via its by-laws. The board of
> directors recognizes certain groups as groups of enfranchised
> stakeholders for each group's stated purpose: Address Supporting
> Organization (ASO), Country-Code Names Supporting Organization
> (CCNSO), Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Advisory
> Committees (AC, such as GAC, SSAC, RSSAC, ALAC), and then other,
> board, and temporary committees.
> 
> They're narrowly focused (other than perhaps the GAC) on ICANN's core
> mission: Names, numbers, and the stability and operations thereof.
> 
> Nonetheless the process is led by a board of directors chosen by a
> nominating committee consisting primarily of members of those
> organizations, or external organizations given a seat by that board
> (with their own processes for choosing directors), who can approve
> enfranchised stakeholder groups.
> 
> Within each of those groups there are other stakeholder groups
> approved by those groups' leadership and noted in the by-laws who are
> enfranchised to participate in the groups' decision-making.
> 
> For exmaple within GNSO there are the Registries and Regstrars
> stakeholder groups (SGs), Business Constituency SG, Intellectual
> Property SG, Internet Service Providers SG, Non-Commercial Users
> Constituency. And so forth.
> 
> It's all in the by-laws and apologies in advance if I made any small
> errors but I think that's the gist of it.
> 
> One could argue it's rather top-down in that substantive top-level
> changes must get through approval by the board of directors. There's
> no process that I know of, for example, to over-ride the board's
> decisions on such structures though there is a fair amount of latitude
> within each group pertaining to their own leadership, agenda, process
> structures, etc.
> 
> But, for example, I believe the board could in theory dissolve an
> entire Supporting Organization and by implication any enfranchisement
> of their stakeholder groups via a board vote with no formal challenge
> process (no involuntary override) possible.
> 
> One can submit a "reconsideration request" and/or ask for an
> Independent Review Process Panel (IRP) but it's all gated by board
> members (via the Board Governance Committee) or the board acting as a
> whole -- approving such panels and their membership, taking action on
> their recommendations or not, etc.
> 
> -- 
>        -Barry Shein
> 
> The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
> Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/d4854ac3/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  Mon May 18 14:23:19 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 14:23:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] [JNC - Forum] Call for Participation: Global
 Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <8EE7E123-ABFA-460C-8DB0-841C3B8752C9@hserus.net>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
	<5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
	<55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
	<D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYr-n6Ny-T3f-B8HUjUNF0rNSJD2Ripk4AZPgvAhSqMcuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<8EE7E123-ABFA-460C-8DB0-841C3B8752C9@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <21850.11799.959525.40927@world.std.com>


From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
On 18-May-2015, at 1:18 am, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> The most stable definition:   Fig leaf for US dominance
>
>People say that all the time.  But then there are people in the USA who thi=
>nk Obama is out to send the US army into Texas to conquer it and put it und=
>er martial law.

By and large only some Texans who imagine their state is something
Obama would actually want.

Although the US certainly controls a number of important control
points in the net a lot of its "dominance" has little to do with those
control points.

Take, for example, NSA surveillance.

I don't believe the control points people are talking about, such as
the IANA contract or location of ICANN, had anything whatsoever to do
with the pervasiveness of NSA surveillance.

NSA could have done what it did even if the IANA contract were under
the control of Outer Slobbovia.

It was largely a product of economic dominance and first-mover
advantage. A lot of the world's internet traffic moved through
organizations (telecom companies etc) which NSA could get jurisdiction
over or otherwise influence to their needs.

There's a conflation of US as political entity (non-trivial) and US as
economic and trade entity (non-trivial.)

And of course a coincidence of world events such as the rise of global
terrorist activity and its use of the net which rationalized the
surveillance in many actors' minds who might otherwise have hesitated.

And of course vast budgets, hundreds of millions of US$ were paid to
telecom companies for that snooping.

-- 
        -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 lucabelli at hotmail.it  Mon May 18 17:37:25 2015
From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 23:37:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?FW=3A_=5BDisarmed=5D_=5Bnncoalition=5D_=5B?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?Disarmed=5D_Request_for_Comments_-_Statements_on_Net_Neutrality?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_=E2=80=8F?=
In-Reply-To:  <20150518140756.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.ada32a9518.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
References:  <20150518140756.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.ada32a9518.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <DUB122-W38122E774CA0FB4428FF4EC6C40@phx.gbl>


Dear all
(apologies for cross-posting), 


Many thanks
for the numerous comments to the initial draft statement (see eg this google doc). The DRAFT 2.0 is in attachment
and can be commented on using this googledoc, this pad or via the mailing-list of the Dynamic Coalition on network Neutrality
(DCNN).


Comments converged as regards the need for a concise NN statement that may be
compatible but independent from the Model Framework on Network Neutrality (MF),
elaborated by the DCNN and presented at the 8th IGF. Michael and
I (the drafters) consolidated the received comments into a quite concise Draft 2.0 and would like to have your advise on whether to include or not the specialised service provisions in this Draft. The possible options would be to: 

(i)              Have
a separate statement on specialised services. In this case a specialised service statement will be circulated in the forthcoming days for comments. 

(ii)            
Include
concise specialised service provisions in the attached Draft 2.0. This option may
provide a more complete text but may also make it more difficult to reach
consensus on the Statement. 

(iii)           Include
detailed provisions on specialised service in an updated version of the MF. Such option would allow to have both a principle-statement, expressing a common IGF vision on NN, and
a detailed MF 2.0 supported by DCNN members (and perhaps by GNN members?) providing specific indications on how to frame both NN
and specialized services. 

 


The
deadline to comment this second draft is Saturday
29 May. Subsequently a final draft will be shared and, if needed, an extra
10-day comment period will be opened.  


Thanks a
lot for your contributions! 

Best,Luca



 
Dear all, (apologies for crossposting)
 
 This is a Request for Comments with regard to the development of two Policy Statements on Net Neutrality promoted by members of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN) and the Global Coalition on Net Neutrality (GNN), to be discussed within the IGF community at-large.
SUBJECT
 The development of the DRAFT Net Neutrality Policy Statements aims at promoting the endorsement of an agreed position on net neutrality by the IGF community, based on the Model Framework on Network Neutrality developed by the DCNN.
  The development of these Policy Statements is consistent with the Final Chair's Summary of the IGF 2014, according to which "The ninth IGF concluded with looking at the role of the IGF in taking the network neutrality discussion forward. [...] The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality will continue the discussions leading up to the 2015 meeting, but the view was also held that there was a need to develop a process that allowed the entire IGF community to weigh in and validate the findings of the Dynamic Coalition." 
The DCNN Model Framework (MF) was presented at the 8th IGF in Bali and included in a Report on "Protecting Human Rights through Network Neutrality" delivered to the Council of Europe Steering Committee on Media and Information Society to be used as a working document for the elaboration of a Draft Recommendation on Net Neutrality. To date, the MF has been conveyed to several Parliamentary assemblies (EU Parliament, Argentinian Senate and South Korean Parliament) by DCNN members. However, although it has already played an inspirational role, the model has never been officially validated by the IGF community at-large, as pointed out by the Chairs Summary. This lack of validation is primarily due to the lack of an official validation process for dynamic coalitions' outcomes within the IGF structure. The development of the Policy Statements aims therefore at filling this gap through a self-organised and bottom-up process, which is the very essence of the IGF. 
 DRAFT POLICY STATEMENTS During the RightsCon joint meeting of the DCNN and the GNN, consensus emerged as regards the elaboration of one or more DRAFT Net Neutrality Policy Statement(s) to be presented to the IGF MAG and discussed - and hopefully endorsed - by the IGF community at-large.  
 The initial DRAFT policy statements are in attachment. The first policy statement (I. On Network Neutrality) aims at providing a concise and "human readable" version of the MF, while the second statement (II. On Specialised Services) aims at expanding the MF definition and provisions on specialised services, adding some further elements.  The statements also include a "restyling" of the MF (APPENDIX Model Framework v.2.0). The original provisions of the MF have been reorganised within this restyled version, in order to identify with more clarity the key issues that should be evoked in the policy statements. The only modification to the MF content concerns the expansion of the specialised service provisions, in order include the additional elements that are proposed in Statement II.
 
 DRAFTERS 
 According to DC NN Rules of Procedure, two drafters have been designated in order to "manage the elaboration of the position or statement and consolidate received comments with the aim of achieving a consensus document."  The two individuals who volunteered as drafters are: - Luca Belli, DCNN Co-Chair and Researcher at the Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de Janeiro  - Michał Woźniak, Warsaw Hackerspace and Polish Linux Users Group 
 CALENDAR
 Comments to this initial DRAFT should be sent by 10 May 2015. After this deadline, the drafters will consolidate the comments and provide an updated draft that will be shared for a second round of comments. According to DCNN Rules of procedure, "DCNN members will be provided with 14 calendar days to comment, followed by a revised draft, and 10 calendar days to comment the revised draft." To foster the inclusion of widest number of comments from the IGF community at-large, all individuals will be allowed to comment the Draft statements using this google doc and this Pad.   You are also free to share your inputs and critiques writing to the DCNN mailing-list nncoalition at mailman.edri.org to which you can subscribe following this link.   
Thanks in advance for your comments and, please, do not hesitate to share this email.
Best regards, 
Luca

Luca Belli, PhDResearcher, Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de JaneiroFounder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network NeutralityCo-founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility


   


_______________________________________________
NNcoalition mailing list
NNcoalition at mailman.edri.org
http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/4d05bb02/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Network Neutrality Policy Statement DRAFT 2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29696 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/4d05bb02/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150518/4d05bb02/attachment.ksh>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon May 18 21:19:12 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 06:49:12 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [india-gii] why strict Net neutrality works best:
 simple beats complex
References: <CAHk29vRXDDeQqW4GH-k3PiA7a2tDNsWn5vybv+ntyuvBMG63Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD1CBB0-2206-4666-86D8-3B30B36D1ABA@hserus.net>

An interesting point of view - worth discussing for sure.

—srs

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Arun Mehta <arun.mehta at gmail.com>
> Subject: [india-gii] why strict Net neutrality works best: simple beats complex
> Date: 19 May 2015 6:41:51 am IST
> To: "india-gii at india-gii.org" <india-gii at india-gii.org>
> 
> The IT industry has little respect for its veterans. Like they say, if you don't learn from history, you are condemned to repeat it. A brief history lesson, therefore. I presented this as an invited paper at the Pune conference the ITU organized,  called "Beyond the Internet" about 5 years ago, let me know if you would like a copy.
> 
> The development of the Internet began roughly around the same time that the telecom companies and the ITU began work on developing X.25 and X.400 standards and technology, analogous to TCP-IP and Internet email. Even with the weight of the ITU and all the governments and telcos of the world behind them, X.25 and X.400 have virtually disappeared, only surviving in niches. Why? Because they were far more complex.
> 
> Ethernet beat token ring and all its competitors, again, because it was the simplest: A node that wants to transmit first listens, and if there is nothing on the line, goes ahead and transmits. If two nodes both decide to start transmitting at the same time and cause a collision, they wait a random amount of time each, so as to be unlikely to collide again. WiFi did spectacularly well as a wireless technology even with garbage spectrum, because it essentially implements Ethernet in the air.
> 
> Internet telephony beats conventional again because of simplicity. If a conventional phone call costs you 100 Rupees, less than 1 Rupee is the actual cost of carrying the call.The cost of calculating how long you spoke, from which to which number, at what time, on what plan, then sending you the bill, fighting with you over the amount, sending goons to collect... is of course at least an order of magnitude greater. And then, certainly not least, is the cost of a Shahrukh Khan or equivalent to help sell it to you.
> 
> Any violation of net neutrality adds to complexity. Once you let the marketing guys call the shots, the complexity only grows. Any change you implement involves changing the software, which becomes bloated and buggy. This is why I believe that strict net neutrality will win.
> 
> Arun Mehta
> _______________________________________________
> India-gii mailing list
> India-gii at lists.india-gii.org
> https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/40683042/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  Tue May 19 03:09:06 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 12:39:06 +0530
Subject: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
 Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <21850.8747.820474.814826@world.std.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>	<5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>	<55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>	<D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>	<CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <21850.8747.820474.814826@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <555AE192.7020101@itforchange.net>


On Monday 18 May 2015 11:02 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> You can't have an operational definition of "multistakeholderism"
> without some process to define it such as enfranchisement in a
> governance body.
>
> One could argue that ICANN has done that via its by-laws. The board of
> directors recognizes certain groups as groups of enfranchised
> stakeholders for each group's stated purpose: Address Supporting
> Organization (ASO), Country-Code Names Supporting Organization
> (CCNSO), Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Advisory
> Committees (AC, such as GAC, SSAC, RSSAC, ALAC), and then other,
> board, and temporary committees.

Barry, by your account nothing can be more top down than
multistakeholderism, as we know it, which is exactly the opposite of
what is sold as its primary value, being bottom up. And this precisely
sums up what is wrong with multistakeholderism as a new post-democratic
political device or institution... parminder

>
> They're narrowly focused (other than perhaps the GAC) on ICANN's core
> mission: Names, numbers, and the stability and operations thereof.
>
> Nonetheless the process is led by a board of directors chosen by a
> nominating committee consisting primarily of members of those
> organizations, or external organizations given a seat by that board
> (with their own processes for choosing directors), who can approve
> enfranchised stakeholder groups.
>
> Within each of those groups there are other stakeholder groups
> approved by those groups' leadership and noted in the by-laws who are
> enfranchised to participate in the groups' decision-making.
>
> For exmaple within GNSO there are the Registries and Regstrars
> stakeholder groups (SGs), Business Constituency SG, Intellectual
> Property SG, Internet Service Providers SG, Non-Commercial Users
> Constituency. And so forth.
>
> It's all in the by-laws and apologies in advance if I made any small
> errors but I think that's the gist of it.
>
> One could argue it's rather top-down in that substantive top-level
> changes must get through approval by the board of directors. There's
> no process that I know of, for example, to over-ride the board's
> decisions on such structures though there is a fair amount of latitude
> within each group pertaining to their own leadership, agenda, process
> structures, etc.
>
> But, for example, I believe the board could in theory dissolve an
> entire Supporting Organization and by implication any enfranchisement
> of their stakeholder groups via a board vote with no formal challenge
> process (no involuntary override) possible.
>
> One can submit a "reconsideration request" and/or ask for an
> Independent Review Process Panel (IRP) but it's all gated by board
> members (via the Board Governance Committee) or the board acting as a
> whole -- approving such panels and their membership, taking action on
> their recommendations or not, etc.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/e5db65ce/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 amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com  Tue May 19 04:01:52 2015
From: amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com (Amrita)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 13:31:52 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [india-gii] why strict Net neutrality works
 best: simple beats complex
In-Reply-To: <4CD1CBB0-2206-4666-86D8-3B30B36D1ABA@hserus.net>
References: <CAHk29vRXDDeQqW4GH-k3PiA7a2tDNsWn5vybv+ntyuvBMG63Rg@mail.gmail.com> <4CD1CBB0-2206-4666-86D8-3B30B36D1ABA@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <01cb01d0920a$14a91d20$3dfb5760$@com>

Good point but he is really missing what is net neutrality?

Concern is level playing field for  technology.

Irrespective of technology (technology neutral), in India, there is cost for license, one time spectrum fee and annual spectrum usage charges.

Yes, if one doesn't pay any of these charges, it is convenient to sell at the price quoted by Mr. Mehta and thus, one may not ask for Shahrukh's help.

The paradox is that on one hand we advocate for the cheaper cost and on the same hand, we are against Free propositions over Net Neutrality. :-)

Cheers

Amrita

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:49 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [india-gii] why strict Net neutrality works best: simple beats complex

 

An interesting point of view - worth discussing for sure.

 

—srs





Begin forwarded message:

 

From: Arun Mehta <arun.mehta at gmail.com>

Subject: [india-gii] why strict Net neutrality works best: simple beats complex

Date: 19 May 2015 6:41:51 am IST

To: "india-gii at india-gii.org" <india-gii at india-gii.org>

 

The IT industry has little respect for its veterans. Like they say, if you don't learn from history, you are condemned to repeat it. A brief history lesson, therefore. I presented this as an invited paper at the Pune conference the ITU organized,  called "Beyond the Internet" about 5 years ago, let me know if you would like a copy.

 

The development of the Internet began roughly around the same time that the telecom companies and the ITU began work on developing X.25 and X.400 standards and technology, analogous to TCP-IP and Internet email. Even with the weight of the ITU and all the governments and telcos of the world behind them, X.25 and X.400 have virtually disappeared, only surviving in niches. Why? Because they were far more complex.

 

Ethernet beat token ring and all its competitors, again, because it was the simplest: A node that wants to transmit first listens, and if there is nothing on the line, goes ahead and transmits. If two nodes both decide to start transmitting at the same time and cause a collision, they wait a random amount of time each, so as to be unlikely to collide again. WiFi did spectacularly well as a wireless technology even with garbage spectrum, because it essentially implements Ethernet in the air.

 

Internet telephony beats conventional again because of simplicity. If a conventional phone call costs you 100 Rupees, less than 1 Rupee is the actual cost of carrying the call.The cost of calculating how long you spoke, from which to which number, at what time, on what plan, then sending you the bill, fighting with you over the amount, sending goons to collect... is of course at least an order of magnitude greater. And then, certainly not least, is the cost of a Shahrukh Khan or equivalent to help sell it to you.

 

Any violation of net neutrality adds to complexity. Once you let the marketing guys call the shots, the complexity only grows. Any change you implement involves changing the software, which becomes bloated and buggy. This is why I believe that strict net neutrality will win.

 

Arun Mehta

_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
India-gii at lists.india-gii.org
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/216fccf6/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 May 19 04:43:17 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 14:13:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [india-gii] why strict Net neutrality works
 best: simple beats complex
In-Reply-To: <01cb01d0920a$14a91d20$3dfb5760$@com>
References: <CAHk29vRXDDeQqW4GH-k3PiA7a2tDNsWn5vybv+ntyuvBMG63Rg@mail.gmail.com> <4CD1CBB0-2206-4666-86D8-3B30B36D1ABA@hserus.net> <01cb01d0920a$14a91d20$3dfb5760$@com>
Message-ID: <6396B6A6-DF5A-4FAD-AC43-1EA7D4A9CAA0@hserus.net>

That's a point I wanted made and I thank you for making it.

--srs

> On 19-May-2015, at 1:31 pm, Amrita <amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Good point but he is really missing what is net neutrality?
> 
> Concern is level playing field for  technology.
> 
> Irrespective of technology (technology neutral), in India, there is cost for license, one time spectrum fee and annual spectrum usage charges.
> 
> Yes, if one doesn't pay any of these charges, it is convenient to sell at the price quoted by Mr. Mehta and thus, one may not ask for Shahrukh's help.
> 
> The paradox is that on one hand we advocate for the cheaper cost and on the same hand, we are against Free propositions over Net Neutrality. :-)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Amrita
> 
>  
>  
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:49 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] Fwd: [india-gii] why strict Net neutrality works best: simple beats complex
>  
> An interesting point of view - worth discussing for sure.
>  
> —srs
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
>  
> From: Arun Mehta <arun.mehta at gmail.com>
> Subject: [india-gii] why strict Net neutrality works best: simple beats complex
> Date: 19 May 2015 6:41:51 am IST
> To: "india-gii at india-gii.org" <india-gii at india-gii.org>
>  
> The IT industry has little respect for its veterans. Like they say, if you don't learn from history, you are condemned to repeat it. A brief history lesson, therefore. I presented this as an invited paper at the Pune conference the ITU organized,  called "Beyond the Internet" about 5 years ago, let me know if you would like a copy.
>  
> The development of the Internet began roughly around the same time that the telecom companies and the ITU began work on developing X.25 and X.400 standards and technology, analogous to TCP-IP and Internet email. Even with the weight of the ITU and all the governments and telcos of the world behind them, X.25 and X.400 have virtually disappeared, only surviving in niches. Why? Because they were far more complex.
>  
> Ethernet beat token ring and all its competitors, again, because it was the simplest: A node that wants to transmit first listens, and if there is nothing on the line, goes ahead and transmits. If two nodes both decide to start transmitting at the same time and cause a collision, they wait a random amount of time each, so as to be unlikely to collide again. WiFi did spectacularly well as a wireless technology even with garbage spectrum, because it essentially implements Ethernet in the air.
>  
> Internet telephony beats conventional again because of simplicity. If a conventional phone call costs you 100 Rupees, less than 1 Rupee is the actual cost of carrying the call.The cost of calculating how long you spoke, from which to which number, at what time, on what plan, then sending you the bill, fighting with you over the amount, sending goons to collect... is of course at least an order of magnitude greater. And then, certainly not least, is the cost of a Shahrukh Khan or equivalent to help sell it to you.
>  
> Any violation of net neutrality adds to complexity. Once you let the marketing guys call the shots, the complexity only grows. Any change you implement involves changing the software, which becomes bloated and buggy. This is why I believe that strict net neutrality will win.
>  
> Arun Mehta
> _______________________________________________
> India-gii mailing list
> India-gii at lists.india-gii.org
> https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/f39bad97/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  Tue May 19 06:05:24 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 12:05:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au>

My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be constructed, and public interest a description of its content. One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'.

That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is a problematic term. The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders. Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your lobby group. 

This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits much deeper discussion.

But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion. 

Regards 

David

Sent from my iPad

> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' !
> 
> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder Interest' ?
> 
> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
> 
> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
> 
> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area are either a silent or active accomplices. 
> 
> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history. 
> 
> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
> 
> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr congress.
> 
> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those who may be interested.
> 
> parminder 
> 
>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>> Property and Public Interest.
>> 
>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>> might be interested.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Geetha.
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
>> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>> panels and workshops.
>> 
>> The application form is available now at
>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>> 
>> Deadlines
>> 
>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>> 
>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>> 
>> Application Information
>> 
>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>> the form.
>> 
>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>> 
>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>> countries.
>> 
>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>> 
>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>> 
>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>> 
>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>> of IP policy and practice.
>> 
>> Participation Opportunities
>> 
>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>> 
>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>> 
>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>> interest.
>> 
>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>> .
>> 
>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>> aforementioned sessions.
>> 
>> The application form for participation is available now
>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>> 
>> Organisation
>> 
>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>> 
>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>> 
>> 
>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>> 
>> Swaraj Barooah
>> 
>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>> 
>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com>
>> Founder, Know-GAP
>> Twitter: @swarajpb
> >
> 
>       >
> 
>       > ____________________________________________________________
> 
>       > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
>       >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> 
>       > To be removed from the list, visit:
> 
>       >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
>       >
> 
>       > For all other list information and functions, see:
> 
>       >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> 
>       > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> 
>       >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
>       >
> 
>       > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/1f07ca29/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  Tue May 19 08:50:28 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 18:20:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net>



On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
> My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
> stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
> constructed, and public interest a description of its content.

David
If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I
were arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals
spoke of 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not
structure....

The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or
main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an
inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."

I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure
of workshop.

I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder
'structure' of a workshop.

But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a
certain sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please
lets not do it and stick to the specific context.  (More below)


> One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
> thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
> it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
> customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
> frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
> multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
> multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
> 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>
> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
> a problematic term.

There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time
as claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that 
'determination of what is public interest in a given context is never
easy, or even a problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes
public interest in a given context was not problematic we will not need
politics and democracy. The latter institutions exist almost entirely to
obtain a good and fair determination of what is pulbic interest, which
they are still never able to do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do
not confuse between 'public interest being a problematic term' and
'determination of what is public interest in any given context being
problematic'.


> The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
> apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
> power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
> (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
> counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
> increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
> public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
> immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
> to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
> Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
> lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
> Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
> gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
> to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
> justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
> lobby group. 
>
> This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
> interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
> have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
> understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
> valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
> think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
> sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
> problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
> much deeper discussion.

Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
property and public interest', here is the list of participants
<http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>of
the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
understand the term in the Internet governance space.
/*
*//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
(called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
like to answer this key question.*/

As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
(more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
(more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>
> But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
> from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
> to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.

David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
see as carrying any baggage).

The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
(as carrying baggage) and so on.....

Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
do much.

parminder

>
> Regards 
>
> David
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>
>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>> Interest' ?
>>
>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>
>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>
>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>
>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>> society will have to answer to history.
>>
>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>
>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>> importanr congress.
>>
>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>> who may be interested.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>
>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>> might be interested.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Geetha.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be
>>> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting
>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>> panels and workshops.
>>>
>>> The application form is available now at
>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>
>>> Deadlines
>>>
>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>
>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>
>>> Application Information
>>>
>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>> the form.
>>>
>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>
>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>
>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>
>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>
>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>
>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>
>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>
>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>
>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>> .
>>>
>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>
>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>
>>> Organisation
>>>
>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>
>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>
>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>
>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>
>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/61a30ff8/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  Tue May 19 10:01:12 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:01:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] Why?
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
 <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
 <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au>
 <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003? 

The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have overtaken the discussion. 

My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.

Wolfgang

 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
An: David Cake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
 


On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
> My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
> stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
> constructed, and public interest a description of its content.

David
If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I
were arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals
spoke of 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not
structure....

The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or
main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an
inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."

I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure
of workshop.

I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder
'structure' of a workshop.

But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a
certain sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please
lets not do it and stick to the specific context.  (More below)


> One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
> thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
> it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
> customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
> frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
> multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
> multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
> 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>
> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
> a problematic term.

There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time
as claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that 
'determination of what is public interest in a given context is never
easy, or even a problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes
public interest in a given context was not problematic we will not need
politics and democracy. The latter institutions exist almost entirely to
obtain a good and fair determination of what is pulbic interest, which
they are still never able to do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do
not confuse between 'public interest being a problematic term' and
'determination of what is public interest in any given context being
problematic'.


> The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
> apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
> power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
> (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
> counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
> increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
> public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
> immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
> to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
> Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
> lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
> Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
> gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
> to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
> justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
> lobby group. 
>
> This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
> interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
> have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
> understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
> valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
> think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
> sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
> problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
> much deeper discussion.

Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
property and public interest', here is the list of participants
<http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>of
the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
understand the term in the Internet governance space.
/*
*//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
(called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
like to answer this key question.*/

As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
(more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
(more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>
> But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
> from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
> to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.

David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
see as carrying any baggage).

The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
(as carrying baggage) and so on.....

Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
do much.

parminder

>
> Regards 
>
> David
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>
>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>> Interest' ?
>>
>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>
>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>
>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>
>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>> society will have to answer to history.
>>
>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>
>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>> importanr congress.
>>
>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>> who may be interested.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>
>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>> might be interested.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Geetha.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>> panels and workshops.
>>>
>>> The application form is available now at
>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>
>>> Deadlines
>>>
>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>
>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>
>>> Application Information
>>>
>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>> the form.
>>>
>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>
>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>
>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>
>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>
>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>
>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>
>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>
>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>
>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>> .
>>>
>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>
>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>
>>> Organisation
>>>
>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>
>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>
>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>
>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>
>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



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

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

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

From ymshana2003 at gmail.com  Tue May 19 10:24:52 2015
From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (ymshana2003)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:24:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] Why?
Message-ID: <4oo649tb8tc8ldfa3hinhc7y.1432045492421@email.android.com>

++1 Wolfgang

It is not surprising to see some of the CS activists are not informed or have chosen to overlook the reasons for the CS to be involved in the Processes.

No wonder, instead of moving forward they have formed groups and fighting each other. As an Ordinary members of the users society finds it hard to believe what has been going on.

The issue here as we have seen even at higher levels of IG is that....."short term benefits" and "some money" to be made by individuals who have vested interests?.

Time to parade the CS in line with the agreement if 2005 (when some of the CS were not yet formed - therefore have no recognition of the agreement of 2005).
Well said I hope.
Kind regards
Yassin Mshana 


Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 
Date:19/05/2015  16:01  (GMT+02:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>,David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,"Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org> 
Subject: [governance] Why? 

Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003? 

The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have overtaken the discussion. 

My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.

Wolfgang




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
An: David Cake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015



On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
> My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
> stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
> constructed, and public interest a description of its content.

David
If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I
were arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals
spoke of 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not
structure....

The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or
main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an
inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."

I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure
of workshop.

I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder
'structure' of a workshop.

But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a
certain sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please
lets not do it and stick to the specific context.  (More below)


> One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
> thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
> it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
> customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
> frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
> multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
> multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
> 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>
> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
> a problematic term.

There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time
as claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that 
'determination of what is public interest in a given context is never
easy, or even a problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes
public interest in a given context was not problematic we will not need
politics and democracy. The latter institutions exist almost entirely to
obtain a good and fair determination of what is pulbic interest, which
they are still never able to do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do
not confuse between 'public interest being a problematic term' and
'determination of what is public interest in any given context being
problematic'.


> The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
> apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
> power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
> (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
> counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
> increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
> public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
> immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
> to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
> Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
> lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
> Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
> gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
> to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
> justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
> lobby group. 
>
> This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
> interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
> have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
> understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
> valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
> think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
> sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
> problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
> much deeper discussion.

Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
property and public interest', here is the list of participants
<http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>of
the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
understand the term in the Internet governance space.
/*
*//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
(called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
like to answer this key question.*/

As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
(more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
(more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>
> But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
> from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
> to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.

David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
see as carrying any baggage).

The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
(as carrying baggage) and so on.....

Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
do much.

parminder

>
> Regards 
>
> David
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>
>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>> Interest' ?
>>
>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>
>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>
>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>
>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>> society will have to answer to history.
>>
>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>
>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>> importanr congress.
>>
>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>> who may be interested.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>
>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>> might be interested.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Geetha.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>> panels and workshops.
>>>
>>> The application form is available now at
>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>
>>> Deadlines
>>>
>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>
>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>
>>> Application Information
>>>
>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>> the form.
>>>
>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>
>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>
>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>
>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>
>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>
>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>
>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>
>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>
>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>> .
>>>
>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>
>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>
>>> Organisation
>>>
>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>
>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>
>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>
>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>
>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/76c49fed/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 May 19 11:48:32 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:48:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] Why?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au> <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <017a01d0924b$458ac830$d0a05890$@gmail.com>

Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the leading
"civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and UKG
(and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS
+10 process.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"
Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
Subject: [governance] Why?

Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list
is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am
right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played
an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to
look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why
people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send,
be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the
CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003? 

The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
overtaken the discussion. 

My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of
younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
(USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of
the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It
is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this
oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.

Wolfgang

 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
An: David Cake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
 


On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
> My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi 
> stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be 
> constructed, and public interest a description of its content.

David
If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I were
arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals spoke of
'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not structure....

The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main
workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive
manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."

I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure of
workshop.

I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder 'structure' of
a workshop.

But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a certain
sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please lets not do it
and stick to the specific context.  (More below)


> One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same 
> thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if 
> it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO 
> customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And 
> frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a 
> multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of 
> multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a 
> 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>
> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is 
> a problematic term.

There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time as
claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that 'determination
of what is public interest in a given context is never easy, or even a
problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes public interest in
a given context was not problematic we will not need politics and democracy.
The latter institutions exist almost entirely to obtain a good and fair
determination of what is pulbic interest, which they are still never able to
do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do not confuse between 'public
interest being a problematic term' and 'determination of what is public
interest in any given context being problematic'.


> The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
> apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
> power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
> (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
> counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
> increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
> public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
> immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
> to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
> Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
> lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
> Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
> gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
> to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
> justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
> lobby group. 
>
> This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
> interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
> have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
> understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
> valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
> think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
> sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
> problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
> much deeper discussion.

Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
property and public interest', here is the list of participants
<http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf
>of
the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
understand the term in the Internet governance space.
/*
*//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
(called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
like to answer this key question.*/

As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
(more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
(more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>
> But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
> from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
> to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.

David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
see as carrying any baggage).

The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
(as carrying baggage) and so on.....

Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
do much.

parminder

>
> Regards 
>
> David
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>
>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>> Interest' ?
>>
>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>
>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>
>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>
>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>> society will have to answer to history.
>>
>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>
>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>> importanr congress.
>>
>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>> who may be interested.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>
>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>> might be interested.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Geetha.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>> panels and workshops.
>>>
>>> The application form is available now at
>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>
>>> Deadlines
>>>
>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>
>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>
>>> Application Information
>>>
>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>> the form.
>>>
>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>
>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>
>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>
>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>
>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>
>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>
>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>
>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>
>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>> .
>>>
>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>
>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>
>>> Organisation
>>>
>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>
>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>
>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>
>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>
>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





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

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

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

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Tue May 19 12:40:41 2015
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 12:40:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] Why?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au> <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4C5C7760-A57F-4D5E-8E45-F5BED4696034@gmail.com>

All,

I strongly agree with what Wolfgang says below.

I've been very involved in civil society projects in the past, and I have been following these lists for years and from time to time, contributing significantly to them.  I've stopped contributing to the lists because I see little purpose in it.  They appear to focus mostly on who is undisputedly right in a variety of definitions and intellectual arguments. 

Unless there are, first and foremost, some relatively shared and agreed upon achievable goals, these discussions become nothing more than a conversation.  If you have the time, and are interested in the topic, then you join the conversation.  But let's not confuse such a conversation with serious consideration of progress toward goals. 

Once you have goals that are sufficiently clearly articulated and accepted, then you need to agree on the various means of working toward achieving them.

Perhaps I'm not thinking in the right way about this subject, but I don't see either of the above processes taking place in these lists.  Bickering has taken over.  Without goals and a plan, I personally don't see much relevance or value in the current milieu of unpleasant exchanges of messages.  

George



On May 19, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003? 
> 
> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have overtaken the discussion. 
> 
> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
> An: David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
>> My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
>> stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
>> constructed, and public interest a description of its content.
> 
> David
> If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I
> were arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals
> spoke of 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not
> structure....
> 
> The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or
> main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an
> inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."
> 
> I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
> replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
> always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure
> of workshop.
> 
> I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
> structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder
> 'structure' of a workshop.
> 
> But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a
> certain sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please
> lets not do it and stick to the specific context.  (More below)
> 
> 
>> One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
>> thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
>> it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
>> customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
>> frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
>> multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
>> multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
>> 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>> 
>> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
>> a problematic term.
> 
> There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
> interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time
> as claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that 
> 'determination of what is public interest in a given context is never
> easy, or even a problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes
> public interest in a given context was not problematic we will not need
> politics and democracy. The latter institutions exist almost entirely to
> obtain a good and fair determination of what is pulbic interest, which
> they are still never able to do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do
> not confuse between 'public interest being a problematic term' and
> 'determination of what is public interest in any given context being
> problematic'.
> 
> 
>> The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
>> apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
>> power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
>> (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
>> counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
>> increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
>> public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
>> immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
>> to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
>> Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
>> lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
>> Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
>> gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
>> to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
>> justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
>> lobby group. 
>> 
>> This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
>> interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
>> have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
>> understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
>> valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
>> think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
>> sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
>> problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
>> much deeper discussion.
> 
> Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
> property and public interest', here is the list of participants
> <http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>of
> the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
> scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
> hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
> oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
> this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
> understand the term in the Internet governance space.
> /*
> *//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
> public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
> assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
> public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
> (called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
> or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
> participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
> like to answer this key question.*/
> 
> As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
> exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
> (more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
> (more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
> but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>> 
>> But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
>> from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
>> to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.
> 
> David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
> somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
> proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
> were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
> not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
> UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
> use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
> because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
> see as carrying any baggage).
> 
> The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
> problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
> decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
> (as carrying baggage) and so on.....
> 
> Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
> process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
> theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
> do much.
> 
> parminder
> 
>> 
>> Regards 
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>> 
>>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>>> Interest' ?
>>> 
>>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>> 
>>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>> 
>>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>>> society will have to answer to history.
>>> 
>>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>>> importanr congress.
>>> 
>>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>>> who may be interested.
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>> 
>>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>>> might be interested.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Geetha.
>>>> 
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>>>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>>> panels and workshops.
>>>> 
>>>> The application form is available now at
>>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>> 
>>>> Deadlines
>>>> 
>>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>> 
>>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>> 
>>>> Application Information
>>>> 
>>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>>> the form.
>>>> 
>>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>> 
>>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>>> countries.
>>>> 
>>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>> 
>>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>> 
>>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>> 
>>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>> 
>>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>> 
>>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>> 
>>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>> 
>>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>>> interest.
>>>> 
>>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>>> .
>>>> 
>>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>> 
>>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>> 
>>>> Organisation
>>>> 
>>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>> 
>>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>> 
>>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>> 
>>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>> 
>>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue May 19 12:44:02 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 22:14:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] Why?
In-Reply-To: <017a01d0924b$458ac830$d0a05890$@gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au> <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <017a01d0924b$458ac830$d0a05890$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <555B6852.9090001@itforchange.net>



On Tuesday 19 May 2015 09:18 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
> that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the leading
> "civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and UKG
> (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS
> +10 process.


Even more odd, Wolfgang, is that you sidestep the fact that Fadi, the
main architect and champion of the ICANN/ WEF's NetMundial Initiative
(of which you are the ambassador at large) has clearly justified the
NetMundial Initiative as a being necessary in anticipation of what may
otherwise happen in the WSIS plus 10 process. Am I mistaken in saying so.

parminder

>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
> Wolfgang"
> Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
> Subject: [governance] Why?
>
> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list
> is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am
> right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played
> an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to
> look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
> processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why
> people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
> century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send,
> be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the
> CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003? 
>
> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
> overtaken the discussion. 
>
> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of
> younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
> real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
> energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
> multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
> between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
> (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of
> the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It
> is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this
> oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>  
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
> An: David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
> on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>  
>
>
> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
>> My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi 
>> stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be 
>> constructed, and public interest a description of its content.
> David
> If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I were
> arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals spoke of
> 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not structure....
>
> The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main
> workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive
> manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."
>
> I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
> replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
> always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure of
> workshop.
>
> I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
> structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder 'structure' of
> a workshop.
>
> But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a certain
> sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please lets not do it
> and stick to the specific context.  (More below)
>
>
>> One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same 
>> thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if 
>> it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO 
>> customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And 
>> frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a 
>> multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of 
>> multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a 
>> 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>>
>> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is 
>> a problematic term.
> There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
> interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time as
> claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that 'determination
> of what is public interest in a given context is never easy, or even a
> problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes public interest in
> a given context was not problematic we will not need politics and democracy.
> The latter institutions exist almost entirely to obtain a good and fair
> determination of what is pulbic interest, which they are still never able to
> do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do not confuse between 'public
> interest being a problematic term' and 'determination of what is public
> interest in any given context being problematic'.
>
>
>> The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
>> apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
>> power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
>> (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
>> counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
>> increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
>> public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
>> immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
>> to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
>> Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
>> lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
>> Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
>> gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
>> to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
>> justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
>> lobby group. 
>>
>> This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
>> interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
>> have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
>> understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
>> valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
>> think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
>> sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
>> problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
>> much deeper discussion.
> Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
> property and public interest', here is the list of participants
> <http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf
>> of
> the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
> scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
> hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
> oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
> this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
> understand the term in the Internet governance space.
> /*
> *//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
> public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
> assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
> public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
> (called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
> or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
> participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
> like to answer this key question.*/
>
> As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
> exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
> (more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
> (more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
> but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>> But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
>> from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
>> to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.
> David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
> somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
> proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
> were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
> not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
> UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
> use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
> because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
> see as carrying any baggage).
>
> The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
> problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
> decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
> (as carrying baggage) and so on.....
>
> Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
> process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
> theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
> do much.
>
> parminder
>
>> Regards 
>>
>> David
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>>
>>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>>> Interest' ?
>>>
>>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>>
>>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>>
>>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>>> society will have to answer to history.
>>>
>>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>>> importanr congress.
>>>
>>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>>> who may be interested.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>>> might be interested.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Geetha.
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>>>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>>> panels and workshops.
>>>>
>>>> The application form is available now at
>>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>>
>>>> Deadlines
>>>>
>>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>>
>>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>>
>>>> Application Information
>>>>
>>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>>> the form.
>>>>
>>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>>
>>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>>> countries.
>>>>
>>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>>
>>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>>
>>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>>
>>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>>
>>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>>
>>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>>
>>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>>
>>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>>> interest.
>>>>
>>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>>
>>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>>
>>>> Organisation
>>>>
>>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>>
>>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>>
>>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>>
>>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>>
>>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/01eb1366/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  Tue May 19 13:47:16 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 19:47:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Why?
In-Reply-To: <4C5C7760-A57F-4D5E-8E45-F5BED4696034@gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au> <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C5C7760-A57F-4D5E-8E45-F5BED4696034@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0EB026D7-A88A-4761-825C-CAB7094D29E7@consensus.pro>

+1. I rarely even read this list anymore; only posts from people like you, George, get me to read here. That's a great shame; there is a lot of passion, commitment and knowledge here, but as George and Wolfgang have said it seems almost entirely dedicated to negative ends.

As one of my favourite ambassadors in Geneva is wont to say: There are those who make a point, and those who make a difference. I'm not sure that 90% of the list traffic even raises to the level of the former.

On 19 May 2015, at 18:40, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I strongly agree with what Wolfgang says below.
> 
> I've been very involved in civil society projects in the past, and I have been following these lists for years and from time to time, contributing significantly to them.  I've stopped contributing to the lists because I see little purpose in it.  They appear to focus mostly on who is undisputedly right in a variety of definitions and intellectual arguments. 
> 
> Unless there are, first and foremost, some relatively shared and agreed upon achievable goals, these discussions become nothing more than a conversation.  If you have the time, and are interested in the topic, then you join the conversation.  But let's not confuse such a conversation with serious consideration of progress toward goals. 
> 
> Once you have goals that are sufficiently clearly articulated and accepted, then you need to agree on the various means of working toward achieving them.
> 
> Perhaps I'm not thinking in the right way about this subject, but I don't see either of the above processes taking place in these lists.  Bickering has taken over.  Without goals and a plan, I personally don't see much relevance or value in the current milieu of unpleasant exchanges of messages.  
> 
> George
> 
> 
> 
> On May 19, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> 
>> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003? 
>> 
>> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have overtaken the discussion. 
>> 
>> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
>> Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
>> An: David Cake
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
>>> My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
>>> stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
>>> constructed, and public interest a description of its content.
>> 
>> David
>> If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I
>> were arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals
>> spoke of 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not
>> structure....
>> 
>> The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or
>> main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an
>> inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."
>> 
>> I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
>> replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
>> always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure
>> of workshop.
>> 
>> I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
>> structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder
>> 'structure' of a workshop.
>> 
>> But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a
>> certain sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please
>> lets not do it and stick to the specific context.  (More below)
>> 
>> 
>>> One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
>>> thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
>>> it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
>>> customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
>>> frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
>>> multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
>>> multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
>>> 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>>> 
>>> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
>>> a problematic term.
>> 
>> There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
>> interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time
>> as claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that 
>> 'determination of what is public interest in a given context is never
>> easy, or even a problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes
>> public interest in a given context was not problematic we will not need
>> politics and democracy. The latter institutions exist almost entirely to
>> obtain a good and fair determination of what is pulbic interest, which
>> they are still never able to do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do
>> not confuse between 'public interest being a problematic term' and
>> 'determination of what is public interest in any given context being
>> problematic'.
>> 
>> 
>>> The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
>>> apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
>>> power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
>>> (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
>>> counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
>>> increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
>>> public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
>>> immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
>>> to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
>>> Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
>>> lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
>>> Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
>>> gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
>>> to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
>>> justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
>>> lobby group. 
>>> 
>>> This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
>>> interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
>>> have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
>>> understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
>>> valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
>>> think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
>>> sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
>>> problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
>>> much deeper discussion.
>> 
>> Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
>> property and public interest', here is the list of participants
>> <http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>of
>> the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
>> scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
>> hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
>> oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
>> this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
>> understand the term in the Internet governance space.
>> /*
>> *//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
>> public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
>> assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
>> public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
>> (called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
>> or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
>> participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
>> like to answer this key question.*/
>> 
>> As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
>> exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
>> (more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
>> (more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
>> but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>>> 
>>> But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
>>> from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
>>> to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.
>> 
>> David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
>> somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
>> proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
>> were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
>> not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
>> UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
>> use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
>> because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
>> see as carrying any baggage).
>> 
>> The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
>> problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
>> decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
>> (as carrying baggage) and so on.....
>> 
>> Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
>> process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
>> theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
>> do much.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards 
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>>>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>>> 
>>>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>>>> Interest' ?
>>>> 
>>>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>>>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>>>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>>>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>>> 
>>>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>>>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>>>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>>>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>>>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>>>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>>>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>>>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>>> 
>>>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>>>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>>>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>>>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>>>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>>>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>>>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>>>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>>>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>>>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>>>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>>>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>>>> society will have to answer to history.
>>>> 
>>>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>>>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>>>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>>>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>>>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>>>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>>>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>>>> importanr congress.
>>>> 
>>>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>>>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>>>> who may be interested.
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>>>> might be interested.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Geetha.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>>>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>>>>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>>>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>>>> panels and workshops.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The application form is available now at
>>>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Deadlines
>>>>> 
>>>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>>> 
>>>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Application Information
>>>>> 
>>>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>>>> the form.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>>>> countries.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>>> 
>>>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>>>> interest.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>>>> .
>>>>> 
>>>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Organisation
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>>> 
>>>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>   bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>   http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/bfc41999/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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Tue May 19 14:27:06 2015
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 20:27:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
Message-ID: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>

Michael,

I am not sure I see what you mean below by "working to undermine and
diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"?

What surely could undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it will most likely
be less open to non-state actors - and civil society in particular - than
the WSIS itself 10 years ago. Unless things have changed, and according to
the excellent summary by APC
<https://www.apc.org/en/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wsis10-review>:

*the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General
Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental
negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in
an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the
high-level meeting of the General Assembly".*


For sure, modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders are
supposed to be put in place, but there is a big question mark in that
regard at the moment, isn't it?

In that context, maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the IGF
2015. Why don't we make it so?

Best

Bertrand

"*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de
Saint Exupéry
("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
> that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the leading
> "civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and UKG
> (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS
> +10 process.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
> Wolfgang"
> Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition.
> Org
> Subject: [governance] Why?
>
> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this
> list
> is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am
> right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played
> an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to
> look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
> processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus?
> Why
> people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
> century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send,
> be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of
> the
> CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
>
> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
> overtaken the discussion.
>
> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation
> of
> younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
> real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
> energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
> multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
> between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
> (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part
> of
> the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity.
> It
> is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on
> this
> oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/64bc75f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lucabelli at hotmail.it  Tue May 19 14:39:19 2015
From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 20:39:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=5BInternet_Policy=5D_FW=3A_=5BDisarme?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?d=5D_=5Bnncoalition=5D_=5BDisarmed=5D_Request_for_Comments_-_St?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?atements_on_Net_Neutrality_=E2=80=8F?=
In-Reply-To: <011b01d09248$7585d4b0$60917e10$@gmail.com>
References:  <20150518140756.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.ada32a9518.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
 <DUB122-W38122E774CA0FB4428FF4EC6C40@phx.gbl>,<011b01d09248$7585d4b0$60917e10$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DUB122-W4955F588882799138886AEC6C30@phx.gbl>

 
 

Hi John, 

Thanks for your feedback. 
Net
neutrality as defined in the text mirrors the definition of freedom of
expression under international human rights standards (see eg ICCPR). I agree that freedom to
seek, impart and receive any kind of information and ideas may sound
incompatible with censorship (and indeed it should be) but defining FoE or NN does not mean that those principles cannot have limitations. Neither NN nor FoE is an absolute principle and both can be limited. However, in order to avoid abusive behaviours,  such limitations should be provided by law or regulations and be necessary and proportionate to a
legitimate purpose.  The Model
Framework on Network Neutrality, that was elaborated by the DCNN, defines net neutrality
and lists exceptions to equal treatment  (eg
give effect to law and court order; network security and integrity; etc). See http://www.networkneutrality.info/sources.html

However the
current Draft NN statement (which is based on the previous work of the DCNN) is meant to be a
principle statement rather than a model regulatory framework. In my opinion, the
definition of exceptions to net neutrality should be included in a regulatory
framework rather than in a principle statement.  Don’t you agree? 

Anyway, you are raising a valid point and, fortunately, the second comment period
just opened and will close in 10 days, so you (and everyone else) are free to express 
your concerns commenting the draft statement via the googledoc and pad listed below :)


And yes,
both private sector and administrative entities were involved.  And as I said, this document is still a draft
and the purpose of my email is indeed to stimulate further constructive critiques. 


Best, 


Luca



 

From: jlaprise at gmail.com
To: lucabelli at hotmail.it; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
Subject: RE: [Internet Policy] FW: [Disarmed] [nncoalition] [Disarmed] Request for Comments - Statements on Net Neutrality ‏
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 10:28:27 -0500

Hi Luca, I like and agree with it but it is a non-starter for governments and the private sector. As defined in the document, network neutrality would ban censorship and undermine IPR. Were members of either stakeholder group involved in the fashioning of this statement? I think its dead on arrival. Best regards,  John Laprise, Ph.D.Consulting Scholar http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/   From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Luca Belli
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 4:37 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
Subject: [Internet Policy] FW: [Disarmed] [nncoalition] [Disarmed] Request for Comments - Statements on Net Neutrality ‏  Dear all (apologies for cross-posting),  Many thanks for the numerous comments to the initial draft statement (see eg this google doc). The DRAFT 2.0 is in attachment and can be commented on using this googledoc, this pad or via the mailing-list of the Dynamic Coalition on network Neutrality (DCNN). Comments converged as regards the need for a concise NN statement that may be compatible but independent from the Model Framework on Network Neutrality (MF), elaborated by the DCNN and presented at the 8th IGF. Michael and I (the drafters) consolidated the received comments into a quite concise Draft 2.0 and would like to have your advise on whether to include or not the specialised service provisions in this Draft. The possible options would be to: (i)              Have a separate statement on specialised services. In this case a specialised service statement will be circulated in the forthcoming days for comments. (ii)             Include concise specialised service provisions in the attached Draft 2.0. This option may provide a more complete text but may also make it more difficult to reach consensus on the Statement. (iii)           Include detailed provisions on specialised service in an updated version of the MF. Such option would allow to have both a principle-statement, expressing a common IGF vision on NN, and a detailed MF 2.0 supported by DCNN members (and perhaps by GNN members?) providing specific indications on how to frame both NN and specialized services.  The deadline to comment this second draft is Saturday 29 May. Subsequently a final draft will be shared and, if needed, an extra 10-day comment period will be opened.   Thanks a lot for your contributions! Best,Luca  Dear all, (apologies for crossposting)

This is a Request for Comments with regard to the development of two Policy Statements on Net Neutrality promoted by members of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN) and the Global Coalition on Net Neutrality (GNN), to be discussed within the IGF community at-large. SUBJECT
The development of the DRAFT Net Neutrality Policy Statements aims at promoting the endorsement of an agreed position on net neutrality by the IGF community, based on the Model Framework on Network Neutrality developed by the DCNN. The development of these Policy Statements is consistent with the Final Chair's Summary of the IGF 2014, according to which "The ninth IGF concluded with looking at the role of the IGF in taking the network neutrality discussion forward. [...] The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality will continue the discussions leading up to the 2015 meeting, but the view was also held that there was a need to develop a process that allowed the entire IGF community to weigh in and validate the findings of the Dynamic Coalition." The DCNN Model Framework (MF) was presented at the 8th IGF in Bali and included in a Report on "Protecting Human Rights through Network Neutrality" delivered to the Council of Europe Steering Committee on Media and Information Society to be used as a working document for the elaboration of a Draft Recommendation on Net Neutrality. To date, the MF has been conveyed to several Parliamentary assemblies (EU Parliament, Argentinian Senate and South Korean Parliament) by DCNN members. However, although it has already played an inspirational role, the model has never been officially validated by the IGF community at-large, as pointed out by the Chairs Summary. This lack of validation is primarily due to the lack of an official validation process for dynamic coalitions' outcomes within the IGF structure. The development of the Policy Statements aims therefore at filling this gap through a self-organised and bottom-up process, which is the very essence of the IGF.
DRAFT POLICY STATEMENTSDuring the RightsCon joint meeting of the DCNN and the GNN, consensus emerged as regards the elaboration of one or more DRAFT Net Neutrality Policy Statement(s) to be presented to the IGF MAG and discussed - and hopefully endorsed - by the IGF community at-large. 
The initial DRAFT policy statements are in attachment. The first policy statement (I. On Network Neutrality) aims at providing a concise and "human readable" version of the MF, while the second statement (II. On Specialised Services) aims at expanding the MF definition and provisions on specialised services, adding some further elements. The statements also include a "restyling" of the MF (APPENDIX Model Framework v.2.0). The original provisions of the MF have been reorganised within this restyled version, in order to identify with more clarity the key issues that should be evoked in the policy statements. The only modification to the MF content concerns the expansion of the specialised service provisions, in order include the additional elements that are proposed in Statement II.
DRAFTERS 
According to DC NN Rules of Procedure, two drafters have been designated in order to "manage the elaboration of the position or statement and consolidate received comments with the aim of achieving a consensus document." The two individuals who volunteered as drafters are:- Luca Belli, DCNN Co-Chair and Researcher at the Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de Janeiro - Michał Woźniak, Warsaw Hackerspace and Polish Linux Users Group
CALENDAR
Comments to this initial DRAFT should be sent by 10 May 2015. After this deadline, the drafters will consolidate the comments and provide an updated draft that will be shared for a second round of comments.According to DCNN Rules of procedure, "DCNN members will be provided with 14 calendar days to comment, followed by a revised draft, and 10 calendar days to comment the revised draft." To foster the inclusion of widest number of comments from the IGF community at-large, all individuals will be allowed to comment the Draft statements using this google doc and this Pad. You are also free to share your inputs and critiques writing to the DCNN mailing-list nncoalition at mailman.edri.org to which you can subscribe following this link. 
Thanks in advance for your comments and, please, do not hesitate to share this email.
Best regards, 
Luca  Luca Belli, PhDResearcher, Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de JaneiroFounder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network NeutralityCo-founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility 

_______________________________________________ NNcoalition mailing list NNcoalition at mailman.edri.org http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/7cccfe6a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue May 19 14:42:05 2015
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 18:42:05 +0000
Subject: [governance] Why? Lessons from the Internet Mercantile Protocol
 listserv and yet another IGC Failure to Communicate
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
 <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
 <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au>
 <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <2f2fbb80f7544f39bdb71fe0aac16dfb@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Wolfgang, and kind of echoing George and Nick's comments...

Your as usual astute commentary reminds me of an - old story, which I fail to keep short below.  But yes there are points/morals of my story.

Some may just wish to delete/ignore...which is of course everyone's prerogative.

Once upon a time..

in the late 80'/early 90's:  An open email listserv was set up to discuss an 'Internet Mercantile Protocol.' Anyone interested in doing so could self-subscribe to the lightly moderated list. At that time, NSFNET by which pre-commercial Internet backbone was interconnected, was governed per USG rules by an Acceptable Use Policy prohibiting commercial business on the increasing global non-profit research and education network. NSFNET and its AUP were due to end 94/95.  The Internet Mercantile Protocol listerv was set up to address the question of what could be done to define open online, trusted, and secure transaction procedures and processes.

To save the day for an Internet free of commercial taint, several - enthusiastic - self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalists joined the IMP list. They announced they were there expressly to disrupt any further meaningful discussions of what at that point were just hypothetical discussions of a non-existent Internet Mercantile Protocol. 

So to be clear, the anarcho-syndicalists were polite enough to announce their plans up front. : ).  Their clearly stated purpose  was to - prevent - commercialization of the Internet, by preventing development of protocols/standards for transactions. Within a few months, the IMP list descended into - just noise. 

Moral of the story: Anarcho-syndicalists can win, no IMP was ever developed.  

Post-moral of the the story observation: Well, except for the minor (? ; ) detail...that Internet Commerce came anyway. With standards developed in typically, less open fora, than that established by the IMP listserv. Where civil society input was more difficult to embed, than it might otherwise have been if the IMP were permitted to attempt to serve both public and private interests in the emergence of -global , national, and local  - online commerce. One might argue. I stayed on the list for several more years, and was always amused when a - newbie - stumbled upon it, joined, and then sent a message into the...virtual wild west....where the anarcho-syndicalists of the early net ruled. The newbies were promptly shouted down, if they were responded to at all.  After a couple years there seemed to be noone left on the IMP list but me and...several of my anarcho-syndicalist friends and colleagues. 

True moral of the story: The IMP listserv died completely, just about the time ecommerce started to take off for real.  So it is indeed true, back in the day, the future commercial Internet, in a state of nature, was ruled for a time by anarcho-syndicalists, who came to dominate the Internet Mercantile Protocol listserv.  Since most everyone else save this sociologically curious prof, had long fled that curious scene.   Congrats to them - on their - victory?  : )

My comments/suggestions for IGCers, not meaning offense to anyone....and please recall I was the longest lasting friend/colleague of the original anarcho-syndicalists fighting the good fight for the public interest on an increasingly commercial net:  

1) In an alternate or perhaps this universe, maybe well-meaning CS folks could be more clever and manage to not not drive even more of the - real business - of maintaining and extending the global net of nets into even more closed fora and processes, variously ruled by governments and/or firms.   

2) Since in most of those fora, CS multi-stakeholders, however defined, are by design without seats at the table; and alternate forms of democratic governance are unlikely to be found either.  

Or am I hopelessly naive, and history must repeat itself - especially when the history is of a farce? I should just get more popcorn and enjoy this sequel? : (  (No offense to anyone on the list, but the original anarcho-syndicalists were way -way - more entertaining than much of what passes for debate these days on the IGC listserv : )

Final plea/theoretical observation:

 Us CS self-proclaimed leaders and individual activists, on this list and others, just like those self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalists back in the day, admittedly imperfectly represent also (some of) the broader interests of individuals both already on, and the many more not yet able to even access the Facebook-special net of nets.  Defining this reality in political theory and practice terms, beyond and behind multi-stakeholderism is the not always glorious history of corporatism, and neo-corporatism which naturally some theorists/advocates would rather not remind folks of.  But the generally more positive histories of (some) standards organizations and various expert commissions and similar bodies defined and abiding with democratic governance rules are also out there to point to; which must serve the public interest or they violate their legal mandates. 

So yes they, and we, must exist in a democratic context, and serve the public interest - both however ill-defined.  By equally theoretically mushy multi-stakeholder processes.

But to expect the average citizen/voter to - ever - get excited about all the minutia needed to keep the net up and reliable 24/7 X 365 X forever - is unrealistic.  Netheads and code jockeys still rule what they must, as do IP rightsholders, and governments, and...so on.   And, because it is indeed about among other things the money, many many businesses cannot afford to not have seats at the tables. 

Are we surprised? Is any of this news? 

We can safely assume many more private Internets/walled gardens are in all of our futures, as well as in the future of the next couple Billion; absent concerted actions such as those just taken re Facebook's Internet.org , Zuckerberg's own private net of nets. In my opinion, in the coming 5G/Future Internet of Things world(s) that is 100% guaranteed. 

If CS and fellow multi-stakeholders cannot talk among themselves without the - noise level - which has this list rivaling the IMP in its level of epic - failure to communicate - then...can't we all just get along? Ok never mind, guess not : (

Lee

PS: To put it more bluntly and gloomily, how long til this list, which often seems to be but a faint echo of its rather illustrious past but which now - practically speaking, nothing can be done - descends to point it joins the IMP in the dead listerv 'could have been a contender' virtual Hall of Fame for those (not) shaping the Internet's ongoing evolution?   Except to tip cap to our heroic moderators, Ian Peter and colleagues trying to manage to at least nominate a few good folks to a few helpful roles.  Final irony: this is thanks entirely to Avri and the early importation by IGC  of classic IETF multistakeholder processes for randomly fair and balanced nomcoms ; )




________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:01 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
Subject: [governance] Why?

Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?

The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have overtaken the discussion.

My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.

Wolfgang




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
An: David Cake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015



On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
> My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
> stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
> constructed, and public interest a description of its content.

David
If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I
were arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals
spoke of 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not
structure....

The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or
main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an
inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."

I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure
of workshop.

I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder
'structure' of a workshop.

But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a
certain sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please
lets not do it and stick to the specific context.  (More below)


> One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
> thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
> it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
> customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
> frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
> multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
> multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
> 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>
> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
> a problematic term.

There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time
as claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that
'determination of what is public interest in a given context is never
easy, or even a problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes
public interest in a given context was not problematic we will not need
politics and democracy. The latter institutions exist almost entirely to
obtain a good and fair determination of what is pulbic interest, which
they are still never able to do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do
not confuse between 'public interest being a problematic term' and
'determination of what is public interest in any given context being
problematic'.


> The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
> apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
> power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
> (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
> counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
> increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
> public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
> immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
> to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
> Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
> lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
> Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
> gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
> to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
> justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
> lobby group.
>
> This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
> interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
> have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
> understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
> valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
> think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
> sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
> problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
> much deeper discussion.

Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
property and public interest', here is the list of participants
<http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>of
the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
understand the term in the Internet governance space.
/*
*//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
(called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
like to answer this key question.*/

As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
(more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
(more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>
> But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
> from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
> to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.

David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
see as carrying any baggage).

The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
(as carrying baggage) and so on.....

Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
do much.

parminder

>
> Regards
>
> David
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>
>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>> Interest' ?
>>
>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>
>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>
>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>
>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>> society will have to answer to history.
>>
>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>
>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>> importanr congress.
>>
>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>> who may be interested.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>
>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>> might be interested.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Geetha.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>> panels and workshops.
>>>
>>> The application form is available now at
>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>
>>> Deadlines
>>>
>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>
>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>
>>> Application Information
>>>
>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>> the form.
>>>
>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>
>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>
>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>
>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>
>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>
>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>
>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>
>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>
>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>> .
>>>
>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>
>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>
>>> Organisation
>>>
>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>
>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>
>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>
>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>
>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



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

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Tue May 19 15:20:52 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:20:52 -0300
Subject: [governance] Why?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au> <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <555B8D14.9030504@gmail.com>

Dear Wolfgang,

i think, i understand, what you mean. But, if you quote Jon Postel with:
"Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept"
then you should try to use it.

The form of intervening of you, George, Nick can also create a pressure 
against an open discussion about our funamentals. Therefore, we have to 
be liberal and create an open space. But for our self, we try to be 
strictly.

In every discussion we find good things, good ideas, good description of 
relations. But i will repeat. The reality in the "Internet" is defined 
from other groups and people. Our friends want to go in, more deeper in 
the space of creation. But in fact, all activ people in this IGF groups 
and instituions are observers.

And the reflection of this feeling and realization we can read nearly in 
all discussions.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina


Am 19-May-15 um 11:01 schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
>
> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have overtaken the discussion.
>
> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>
> Wolfgang
>

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

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

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

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Tue May 19 15:31:15 2015
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 15:31:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Why?
In-Reply-To: <555B8D14.9030504@gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au> <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <555B8D14.9030504@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B7933CE-31D2-4AFA-A2BF-F8B64CC6CFC3@gmail.com>

Having an open discussion about what you call fundamentals is OK, although I wouldn't characterize the current discussions as respectful or progressive.  But let's not confuse that goal with the goal of advancing broader civil society agenda, as Anriette has mentioned in her recent post.

Perhaps the overall purpose of these list(s) should be discussed, decided and stated.  That way people won't enter into discussions that they consider not in their interest.

George

On May 19, 2015, at 3:20 PM, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Wolfgang,
> 
> i think, i understand, what you mean. But, if you quote Jon Postel with:
> "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept"
> then you should try to use it.
> 
> The form of intervening of you, George, Nick can also create a pressure against an open discussion about our funamentals. Therefore, we have to be liberal and create an open space. But for our self, we try to be strictly.
> 
> In every discussion we find good things, good ideas, good description of relations. But i will repeat. The reality in the "Internet" is defined from other groups and people. Our friends want to go in, more deeper in the space of creation. But in fact, all activ people in this IGF groups and instituions are observers.
> 
> And the reflection of this feeling and realization we can read nearly in all discussions.
> 
> many greetings, willi
> Cordoba, Argentina
> 
> 
> Am 19-May-15 um 11:01 schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
>> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
>> 
>> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have overtaken the discussion.
>> 
>> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


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

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

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

From ymshana2003 at gmail.com  Tue May 19 16:28:53 2015
From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (ymshana2003)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 22:28:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Why?
Message-ID: <r8ufimt30xhdhu367rj8j329.1432067333158@email.android.com>

Wow...it sounds louder !
I had a say in support of this but "the Moderator has to filter my comments in case they are an Alien called Yassin..:-):-). That shows an early crack in the systems unless ones name is 'labelled'..

Anyhow....good stuff going on.
Regards. Yassin.


Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> 
Date:19/05/2015  18:40  (GMT+02:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Kleinwachter Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 
Cc: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>,David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>,BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,"Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org> 
Subject: Re: [governance] Why? 

All,

I strongly agree with what Wolfgang says below.

I've been very involved in civil society projects in the past, and I have been following these lists for years and from time to time, contributing significantly to them.  I've stopped contributing to the lists because I see little purpose in it.  They appear to focus mostly on who is undisputedly right in a variety of definitions and intellectual arguments. 

Unless there are, first and foremost, some relatively shared and agreed upon achievable goals, these discussions become nothing more than a conversation.  If you have the time, and are interested in the topic, then you join the conversation.  But let's not confuse such a conversation with serious consideration of progress toward goals. 

Once you have goals that are sufficiently clearly articulated and accepted, then you need to agree on the various means of working toward achieving them.

Perhaps I'm not thinking in the right way about this subject, but I don't see either of the above processes taking place in these lists.  Bickering has taken over.  Without goals and a plan, I personally don't see much relevance or value in the current milieu of unpleasant exchanges of messages.  

George



On May 19, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003? 
> 
> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have overtaken the discussion. 
> 
> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
> An: David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
>> My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
>> stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
>> constructed, and public interest a description of its content.
> 
> David
> If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I
> were arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals
> spoke of 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not
> structure....
> 
> The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or
> main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an
> inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."
> 
> I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
> replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
> always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure
> of workshop.
> 
> I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
> structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder
> 'structure' of a workshop.
> 
> But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a
> certain sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please
> lets not do it and stick to the specific context.  (More below)
> 
> 
>> One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
>> thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
>> it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
>> customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
>> frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
>> multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
>> multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
>> 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>> 
>> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
>> a problematic term.
> 
> There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
> interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time
> as claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that 
> 'determination of what is public interest in a given context is never
> easy, or even a problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes
> public interest in a given context was not problematic we will not need
> politics and democracy. The latter institutions exist almost entirely to
> obtain a good and fair determination of what is pulbic interest, which
> they are still never able to do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do
> not confuse between 'public interest being a problematic term' and
> 'determination of what is public interest in any given context being
> problematic'.
> 
> 
>> The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
>> apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
>> power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
>> (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
>> counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
>> increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
>> public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
>> immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
>> to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
>> Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
>> lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
>> Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
>> gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
>> to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
>> justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
>> lobby group. 
>> 
>> This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
>> interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
>> have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
>> understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
>> valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
>> think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
>> sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
>> problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
>> much deeper discussion.
> 
> Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
> property and public interest', here is the list of participants
> <http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>of
> the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
> scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
> hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
> oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
> this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
> understand the term in the Internet governance space.
> /*
> *//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
> public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
> assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
> public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
> (called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
> or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
> participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
> like to answer this key question.*/
> 
> As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
> exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
> (more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
> (more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
> but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>> 
>> But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
>> from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
>> to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.
> 
> David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
> somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
> proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
> were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
> not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
> UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
> use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
> because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
> see as carrying any baggage).
> 
> The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
> problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
> decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
> (as carrying baggage) and so on.....
> 
> Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
> process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
> theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
> do much.
> 
> parminder
> 
>> 
>> Regards 
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>> 
>>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>>> Interest' ?
>>> 
>>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>> 
>>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>> 
>>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>>> society will have to answer to history.
>>> 
>>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>>> importanr congress.
>>> 
>>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>>> who may be interested.
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>> 
>>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>>> might be interested.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Geetha.
>>>> 
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>>>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>>> panels and workshops.
>>>> 
>>>> The application form is available now at
>>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>> 
>>>> Deadlines
>>>> 
>>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>> 
>>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>> 
>>>> Application Information
>>>> 
>>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>>> the form.
>>>> 
>>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>> 
>>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>>> countries.
>>>> 
>>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>> 
>>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>> 
>>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>> 
>>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>> 
>>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>> 
>>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>> 
>>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>> 
>>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>>> interest.
>>>> 
>>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>>> .
>>>> 
>>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>> 
>>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>> 
>>>> Organisation
>>>> 
>>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>> 
>>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>> 
>>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>> 
>>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>> 
>>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/510fdd9b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Tue May 19 18:27:50 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 19:27:50 -0300
Subject: [governance] Why?
In-Reply-To: <4B7933CE-31D2-4AFA-A2BF-F8B64CC6CFC3@gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au> <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <555B8D14.9030504@gmail.com> <4B7933CE-31D2-4AFA-A2BF-F8B64CC6CFC3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <555BB8E6.2010501@gmail.com>


Dear George.

"Perhaps the overall purpose of these list(s) should be discussed, 
decided and stated."

This is one way. And mostly, it never works. We have to go another way. 
To do it self. Try to organize our thinking. Our goals to make ourselves 
aware. So to reflect.

We have to understand ourselve. To understand, what moves us. Then, we 
understand more and better the other people. How they act and how they 
speak.

Yes, the text from Anriette was very fantastic.
"Why not write about substantive issues, and about how to pursue a 
social justice agenda around the issues that are internet-related ...".

The "Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
Interest" i don't understand clearly. And i am not sure, that the 
questions and contradictions from Intellectual Property and Public
Interest are really discussed.

Intellectual Property

In our history it never exist. The first installation come in the 12th 
Century in England. But also after this time, the knowledge was always a 
common good.

And if we analyze ourselve, how we can create knowledge in our head, 
then never we speak about "Intellectual Property" in a positive form. It 
is robbery to the community.

Therefore i formulate: "knowledge is always world heritage". And i know, 
that the most people in our world think the same. Therefore, this is the 
"Public Interest".

Access to the Internet

I think, it is clear. The free access to this transport system of 
digital data in packet form. The, the people can communicate, can 
exchange her ideas and experiences, have a free access to the free 
knowledge. This is very simple.

We destroy all this stupid construction in the architecture, that the 
most powerful groups can decide and define. This is for me the "Public 
Interest".

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina



Am 19-May-15 um 16:31 schrieb George Sadowsky:
> Having an open discussion about what you call fundamentals is OK, although I wouldn't characterize the current discussions as respectful or progressive.  But let's not confuse that goal with the goal of advancing broader civil society agenda, as Anriette has mentioned in her recent post.
>
> Perhaps the overall purpose of these list(s) should be discussed, decided and stated.  That way people won't enter into discussions that they consider not in their interest.
>
> George

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

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue May 19 19:02:59 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 01:02:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Why?
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
 <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
 <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
 <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au>
 <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E1YuqVC-0000fI-Lb@igcaucus.org>

Dear Wolfgang,

Your question is pertinent. My response will be 
simple: the Civil Society that we have is 
inadequate because in the global network power 
game it has no power. You are right, it had some 
influence. This was when the private sector was 
learning how to adapt and use the liberal 
activists to better reach the conservative 
consumers. This period is over: CS people travel 
and stay at hotels at the private sector’s 
expenses and/or as part of some national 
delegations. The ICANN Internet has lost its 
disruptive interest. It has become a business road.

The activist power was in the technology and 
innovation. Nothing has basically changed since 
1983.1.1. IETF was created in 1986 by the USG to 
make sure that everything would be and would stay 
NSA-compatible. (I was made to close my 
innovation shop - and its RFC 923 16 million IP 
addresses :-) at that date by McDD). And ever 
since, everyone, including Governments, 
Militaries, Businesses, Merchants, etc. have been 
happy with this. In 1998, after Jon Postel 
started toying with the US root, they created the 
unique root 13 server legend (proving that he 
could not have technically done what he had :-)). 
And every digitally illiterate activist was happy with it.

Then, progressively, China split from the ICANN's 
joke, with a local multiroot system. South Korea 
and China toyed with Aliases. This raised 
concerns among the private sector enough to 
consider an upgrade of the StatUS-quo strategy. 
The I*Core was revamped. At-large was framed in 
an obedient CS support organization. Industries 
reviewed their stands (Unicode, IEEE, W3C) with 
the ISOC help (and a State Department 
contractor). The update was ready in Aug 2012 
before Dubai: it survived becoming a minority 
position vs. the Governments. Snowden helped a 
lot in delaying them (the US NSA bashing was a 
good point against every national NSA). In this 
multilateral vs multistakeholderism 
confrontation, there is a lot that the CS does 
not even understand anymore in the mentally 
engineered  “technopolitically correct” context, 
and is also powerless to impose 
omnistakeholderism. Omniconsumerism has taken the 
lead, RosettaNet and the WEF are the Internet 
future. The NTIA has changed the WSIS State/Civil 
Society/Private Sector/Internationa organization 
enhanced cooperation multstakeholderism, into a 
business multitakeholderism where States are 
accepted on an equal footing basis with ICANN, GAFAMs, USCC, etc.

My reading is simple. In our area, all of these 
are patches for a BUG. That BUG is the ICANN 
design to Be Unilaterally Global. As long as the 
NTIA is its sponsor, the BUG is a feature. 
Unfortunately, the CS activists are not any 
better than the IAB as architects because they 
have not worked enough on the reality's root. Not 
the root of the DNS, but rather the root of our 
changing (technological singularity) society, 
i.e. at the architectonical layer; what is 
changing man in changing the digital environment. 
This only means that CS activists are depressed. 
And they do not know how to revive themselves, i.e. to get some power back.

Your new CS generation is simple to imagine. It 
will resume the pre-1985 non-NSA-constrained 
visionary path. Relational space oriented, 
Multitechnology, multioverlay physical and 
virtual architecture, OSI layer six presentation 
layer for security, extended intelligent 
services, multilingualism, etc. The second 
objective of “The catenet model for internetworking” of Vint Cerf's (IEN 48).

The practical question now is how many CS 
activists will join in asking the IAB/IETF to 
provide guidance on full TCP/IP internet 
technology use, in a MULTICANN context, and 
support the emergence of BUG fixes, at individual 
user level through the proliferation of 
"MYCANN-Plugs-in". Then, you will see a real 
pre-revolutionary debate. Please remember that in 
the IoT context every CPU is a weapon: we have 
not yet started considering the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_smart_grid_protocol 
OSGP issue. Should CS be technically aware ...

The real CS need as regards the global digital 
illiteracy is to increase literacy. The real task 
of CS people is to teach people what the internet 
is. A single authoritative internet book, rather 
than 8,000 RFCs. There are the so-called Names, 
Numbers, and Protocols Communities. The really 
missing one is the Unique Master Documentation 
Community. Then you will have a debate (1) about 
what the Internet technology can do (2) how to 
use it (3) how to extend, improve, and replace it 
depending on what you want to achieve and how.

Discussing goals that you do not know how to 
achieve is rather boring. The CS is bored.

Cheers!
jfc

At 16:01 19/05/2015, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:messages
>
>Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that 
>the discussion on this list is occupied by 
>hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not 
>listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why 
>this civil society network, which once played an 
>important role in policy development in the WSIS 
>process, is unable to look forward where the 
>real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 
>10+ processes and concentrate on substance and 
>how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not 
>respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a 
>quarter of a century ago in his robustness 
>princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be 
>liberal in what you accept". Why they do not 
>remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
>
>The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows 
>and old warriors have overtaken the discussion.
>
>My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will 
>encourage a new generation of younger civil 
>society people who feel more committed to the 
>substance of real civil society activities and 
>do not waste the limited resources and energies 
>for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG 
>proposal for a multistakeholder approach in 
>Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise 
>between "governmental leadership" (China) and 
>private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the 
>door for civil society to become an inclusive 
>part of the process. This was a boig achievement 
>of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to 
>the next generation of civil society activists 
>to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big 
>shame if this would be destroyed.
>
>Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
>Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
>An: David Cake
>Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
>Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for 
>Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual 
>Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>
>
>
>On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
> > My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
> > stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
> > constructed, and public interest a description of its content.
>
>David
>If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I
>were arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals
>spoke of 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not
>structure....
>
>The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or
>main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an
>inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."
>
>I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
>replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
>always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure
>of workshop.
>
>I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
>structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder
>'structure' of a workshop.
>
>But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a
>certain sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please
>lets not do it and stick to the specific context.  (More below)
>
>
> > One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
> > thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
> > it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
> > customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
> > frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
> > multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
> > multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
> > 'multistakeholder perspective'.
> >
> > That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
> > a problematic term.
>
>There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
>interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time
>as claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that
>'determination of what is public interest in a given context is never
>easy, or even a problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes
>public interest in a given context was not problematic we will not need
>politics and democracy. The latter institutions exist almost entirely to
>obtain a good and fair determination of what is pulbic interest, which
>they are still never able to do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do
>not confuse between 'public interest being a problematic term' and
>'determination of what is public interest in any given context being
>problematic'.
>
>
> > The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
> > apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
> > power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
> > (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
> > counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
> > increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
> > public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
> > immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
> > to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
> > Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
> > lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
> > Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
> > gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
> > to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
> > justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
> > lobby group.
> >
> > This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
> > interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
> > have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
> > understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
> > valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
> > think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
> > sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
> > problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
> > much deeper discussion.
>
>Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
>property and public interest', here is the list of participants
><http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>of
>the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
>scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
>hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
>oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
>this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
>understand the term in the Internet governance space.
>/*
>*//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
>public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
>assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
>public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
>(called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
>or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
>participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
>like to answer this key question.*/
>
>As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
>exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
>(more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
>(more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
>but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
> >
> > But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
> > from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
> > to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.
>
>David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
>somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
>proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
>were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
>not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
>UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
>use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
>because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
>see as carrying any baggage).
>
>The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
>problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
>decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
>(as carrying baggage) and so on.....
>
>Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
>process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
>theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
>do much.
>
>parminder
>
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > David
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> > <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
> >> Property and the Public Interest' !
> >>
> >> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
> >> Interest' ?
> >>
> >> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
> >> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
> >> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
> >> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
> >>
> >> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
> >> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
> >> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
> >> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
> >> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
> >> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
> >> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
> >> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
> >>
> >> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
> >> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
> >> are either a silent or active accomplices.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
> >> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
> >> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
> >> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
> >> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
> >> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
> >> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
> >> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
> >> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
> >> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
> >> society will have to answer to history.
> >>
> >> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
> >> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
> >> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
> >> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
> >> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
> >> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
> >> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
> >> importanr congress.
> >>
> >> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
> >> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
> >> who may be interested.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
> >>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
> >>> Property and Public Interest.
> >>>
> >>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
> >>> might be interested.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Geetha.
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: Swaraj Barooah
> >>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
> >>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
> >>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
> >>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
> >>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
> >>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
> >>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
> >>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
> >>> panels and workshops.
> >>>
> >>> The application form is available now at
> >>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
> >>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
> >>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
> >>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
> >>>
> >>> Deadlines
> >>>
> >>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
> >>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
> >>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
> >>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
> >>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
> >>>
> >>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
> >>> submissions will close on November 1st.
> >>>
> >>> Application Information
> >>>
> >>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
> >>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
> >>> the form.
> >>>
> >>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
> >>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
> >>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
> >>>
> >>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
> >>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
> >>> countries.
> >>>
> >>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
> >>>
> >>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
> >>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
> >>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
> >>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
> >>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
> >>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
> >>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
> >>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
> >>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
> >>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
> >>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
> >>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
> >>> policy can best serve the public interest.
> >>>
> >>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
> >>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
> >>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
> >>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
> >>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
> >>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
> >>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
> >>>
> >>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
> >>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
> >>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
> >>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
> >>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
> >>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
> >>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
> >>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
> >>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
> >>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
> >>> of IP policy and practice.
> >>>
> >>> Participation Opportunities
> >>>
> >>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
> >>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
> >>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
> >>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
> >>>
> >>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
> >>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
> >>>
> >>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
> >>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
> >>> interest.
> >>>
> >>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
> >>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
> >>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
> >>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
> >>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
> >>> aforementioned sessions.
> >>>
> >>> The application form for participation is available now
> >>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
> >>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
> >>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
> >>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
> >>>
> >>> Organisation
> >>>
> >>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
> >>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
> >>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
> >>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
> >>>
> >>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
> >>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
> >>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
> >>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
> >>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
> >>>
> >>> Swaraj Barooah
> >>>
> >>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
> >>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
> >>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
> >>>
> >>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
> >>> Founder, Know-GAP
> >>> Twitter: @swarajpb
> >>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ____________________________________________________________
> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >> >
> >> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >> >
> >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your 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 anriette at apc.org  Wed May 20 06:05:30 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 12:05:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net> <D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org>

Dear all

It is really good to see the reference to the APC.glossary. So happy
that people are still using it. We developed it a long time ago when ICT
terms were still evolving.

The definition of the term 'multi-stakeholder' dates back to around
2004/5 when we were doing work at national level to facilitate
collaboration around access to infrastructure, and also when we produced
a guide to organising national WSIS consultations. So it reflects our
history in working in a multi-stakeholder way on ICT for development
issues at national level.

I will ask the APC team to consider if the definition for
multi-stakeholder needs to change.  How do others feel?

And on definition of public interest... good to point out that we don't
have that in our glossary. We should add it.  It generally has different
meanings for different people and in different countries, for lawyers,
for activists, but we use it a lot in APC and therefore we should add it
to our glossary.

Anriette

APC glossary entry on 'multi-stakeholder'

A very broad term that describes groupings of civil society, the private
sector, the public sector, the media and other stakeholders that come
together for a common purpose. It is often used with words like
“partnership” and “consultation”. In multi-stakeholder partnerships the
partners have a shared understanding that they play different roles and
have different purposes, but that they can pursue
collective goals through collaboration and common activities to achieve
such goals. These partnerships are voluntary, with participation driven
by the perceived benefits they may see emerging from the process. Such
partnerships are increasingly being used to challenge and lobby for
change in policy processes.

Style information: APC uses multi-stakeholder with a hyphen between
“multi” and “stakeholder”.



On 18/05/2015 05:45, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Parminder,
> 
> I did not just rely on Wikipedia. (That would be another n of 1.)
> 
> My point was to reply to the question: Does "multistakeholder" now have
> a stable definition?
> 
>>The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and where he
> distinguishes between types even.
>>The second entry is a glossary entry from APC. 
>>The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.
> 
> There is another common factor in the APC and the ICANNWiki entries:
> there is no glossary entry for public interest in either of them.
> 
> I leave you to interpret what that means. 
> 
> Regards, 
> Peng Hwa
> 
> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 11:28 am
> To: Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>,
> Williams Deirde <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>>, Internet Governance
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> Cc: BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org"
> <forum at justnetcoalition.org <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> 
> Peng Hwa
> 
> Since you seem to rely on wikipedia, before declaring that although
> 'everyone knows what knows what multi stakeholder is' 'public interest
> is a problematic concept' (both direct quotes from your email) did you
> look up 'public interest' in wikipedia? Well, here it is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest
> 
> A comparative assessment of the two entries in wikipedia - respectively
> on MSism (multistakeholderism) and public interest - would make clear
> which one is clearer and less contested term.
> 
> Which in turn clearly proves that an assertion in favour of 'clarity' of
> the MS term with respect to the 'public interest' term is not based on
> any kind of facts or on existing body of civilisational knoweldge . It
> is merely ideological, which was my prior point. And the fact that a
> regional IGF process takes such a bias as a given - and does not correct
> itself even when the 'error' is pointed out  - makes a important
> political point, which is the political point that I have been trying to
> make..
> 
> parminder
> 
> On Monday 18 May 2015 06:45 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>> Deirdre,
>>
>> Google
>> multistakeholder.https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=multistakeholder&oq=multistakeholder&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j69i65l2.2580j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8
>>
>> The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and where he
>> distinguishes between types even.
>>
>> The second entry is a glossary entry from APC. 
>>
>> The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.
>>
>> Like many words, there is a “core” meaning and moving beyond that,
>> more than 50 shades of greying that keeps academics employed.
>>
>> Regards, 
>> Ang Peng Hwa
>>
>> From: Williams Deirde <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
>> <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 2:04 am
>> To: Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Ang Peng Hwa
>> <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>
>> Cc: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>, BestBitsList
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
>> "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org
>> <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
>> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>
>> "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy."
>>
>> Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not
>> trying to pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the problem is
>> that everyone /doesn't/ know, or rather that everyone doesn't agree.
>> "Multistakeholder" seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty" word -
>> 'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
>> 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
>> (from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll
>> /http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php)
>> I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where the term
>> is used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used.
>> Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does
>> "multistakeholderism"?
>> Best wishes
>> Deirdre
>>
>> On 17 May 2015 at 11:13, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg
>> <mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     >So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>
>>     What a curious (mis)reading.
>>
>>     First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of
>>     “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would
>>     not want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.
>>
>>     Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic
>>     concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time
>>     to discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what
>>     multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could
>>     discuss it as a panel if you wish.
>>
>>     It would of course have to be next year.
>>
>>     But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline.
>>     Not because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic
>>     conception.
>>
>>     Regards, 
>>     Peng Hwa
>>
>>     From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
>>     <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>>     Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>>     <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
>>     <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>>     Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
>>     To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>>     <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList
>>     <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition.
>>     Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
>>     Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress
>>     on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>
>>     Interesting theme of this series of global congresses:
>>     'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' !
>>
>>     Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the
>>     multistakeholder Interest' ?
>>
>>     You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng
>>     Hwa, head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who
>>     strongly argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear
>>     concept but multistakeholder perspective or interest is much
>>     easier to establish.
>>
>>     The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops
>>     for the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>>     proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>>     suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This
>>     suggestion was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant
>>     groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public
>>     interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of
>>     'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
>>     evolution over it!
>>
>>     Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which,
>>     it is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG
>>     area are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>
>>     Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>>     intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>>     and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>>     admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are
>>     intent to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is
>>     no more bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of
>>     trade and property, whose governance continue to be done in
>>     democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for
>>     the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic
>>     multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this
>>     space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history.
>>
>>     Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and
>>     public interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal
>>     space for the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG
>>     meeting... What really is the difference, other than that the
>>     discourse in the IG space has been captured by powerful forces
>>     before public interest actors could assert themselves. Civil
>>     society in this area must help in re-democraticing this area, and
>>     reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>
>>     Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>>     importanr congress.
>>
>>     In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global
>>     congress on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to
>>     talk to those who may be interested.
>>
>>     parminder
>>
>>     On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>>     PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on
>>>     Intellectual
>>>     Property and Public Interest.
>>>
>>>     Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>>     might be interested.
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>     Geetha.
>>>
>>>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>     From: Swaraj Barooah
>>>     Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>>     Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>     Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>
>>>     Dear all,
>>>
>>>     We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>>     edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the
>>>     Public
>>>     Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress
>>>     will be
>>>     “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now
>>>     inviting
>>>     applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>>     participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>>     panels and workshops.
>>>
>>>     The application form is available now at
>>>     [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note
>>>     that this
>>>     form is for application purposes, and does not amount to
>>>     confirmation of
>>>     participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>>     open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global
>>>     Congress.
>>>
>>>     Deadlines
>>>
>>>     August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>>     considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>>     being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>>     receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>>     circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>
>>>     November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>>     submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>
>>>     Application Information
>>>
>>>     For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>>     workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be
>>>     submitted in
>>>     the form.
>>>
>>>     For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend
>>>     sessions as
>>>     discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose
>>>     and/or
>>>     any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>
>>>     Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>>     Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>>     countries.
>>>
>>>     Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>
>>>     The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>>     Interest is
>>>     the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>>     advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>>     perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>>     experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are
>>>     empowered to
>>>     put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>>     began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in
>>>     2012, and
>>>     was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>>     held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>>     convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>>     practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the
>>>     world's most
>>>     populous region to these global debates around how intellectual
>>>     property
>>>     policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>
>>>     The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research,
>>>     civil
>>>     society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities
>>>     together
>>>     for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>>     property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are
>>>     rare but
>>>     valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>>     The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December,
>>>     2015 in
>>>     New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>
>>>     The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>>     Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection,
>>>     revision, and
>>>     further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to
>>>     produce
>>>     three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly
>>>     research
>>>     directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business
>>>     leaders and
>>>     policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>>     second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>>     research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy
>>>     agenda;
>>>     and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary,
>>>     cross-sector and
>>>     global networked community of experts focused on public interest
>>>     aspects
>>>     of IP policy and practice.
>>>
>>>     Participation Opportunities
>>>
>>>     Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>>     plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the
>>>     room of
>>>     scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>>     cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>
>>>     The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2)
>>>     Access
>>>     to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>
>>>     Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>>     order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>>     interest.
>>>
>>>     The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research
>>>     outputs such
>>>     as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>>     thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global
>>>     Congress
>>>     .
>>>
>>>     Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing
>>>     conference
>>>     papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they
>>>     may share
>>>     their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>>     aforementioned sessions.
>>>
>>>     The application form for participation is available now
>>>     athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward
>>>     this
>>>     invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more
>>>     information or
>>>     questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>>     <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
>>>     <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
>>>     <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>
>>>     Organisation
>>>
>>>     The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>
>>>     <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>>     convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>>     Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law
>>>     University,
>>>     Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/> <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>
>>>     The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>
>>>     <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>>     Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>
>>>     <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>>     York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>
>>>     <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>>     Information Justice and Intellectual Property
>>>     <http://www.pijip.org/> <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>>     American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>
>>>
>>>     On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>
>>>     Swaraj Barooah
>>>
>>>     Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>>     Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>>     (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>
>>>     Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>>     <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>>     Founder, Know-GAP
>>>     Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > ____________________________________________________________
>>     > 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
>>
>>
>>     SG50
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s)
>>     named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not
>>     the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not
>>     copy, use, or disclose its contents.
>>     Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>          http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed May 20 06:19:33 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 12:19:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reflections on making Internet governance democratic
 and participative
Message-ID: <20150520121933.4f1249d6@quill>

I would be very interested in in your thoughts about this:

Reflections on making Internet governance democratic and participative
by Norbert Bollow and Richard Hill

http://bollow.ch/papers/democratic_and_participative.pdf


Abstract: Recent events have made clear that there is a conflict
between the demand that global governance must be democratic and the
ideology of multistakeholderism which underlies the status quo of
Internet governance. This paper examines to what extent this conflict
is real (as opposed to being a matter of misunderstandings and/or
intentional misrepresentations of the other side's positions), and it
reflects on how the underlying problem of making Internet governance
democratic as well as participative can be solved.


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 jlfullsack at orange.fr  Wed May 20 09:15:27 2015
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:15:27 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
 <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
 <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net>
 <D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org>
Message-ID: <307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20>

Dear Anriette

 

Public interest " generally has different
> meanings for different people and in different countries, for lawyers,
> for activists"

 

Don't the same remarks/restrictions apply to Multistakeholderism ? Do you see e.g. Burkina Faso government on "equal footing" with Google or other GAFA-like enterprises ? Not to mention BF Civil society orgs ? 

 

Best

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack

 

PS : BTW will you and/or APC take part in the next week WSIS Forum at Geneva ?  

 

 

 

 

> Message du 20/05/15 12:05
> De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" 
> A : "Internet Governance" 
> Copie à : "BestBitsList" , "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" , "APC ICT policy advocacy" , "lori at apc.org" 
> Objet : Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> 
> Dear all
> 
> It is really good to see the reference to the APC.glossary. So happy
> that people are still using it. We developed it a long time ago when ICT
> terms were still evolving.
> 
> The definition of the term 'multi-stakeholder' dates back to around
> 2004/5 when we were doing work at national level to facilitate
> collaboration around access to infrastructure, and also when we produced
> a guide to organising national WSIS consultations. So it reflects our
> history in working in a multi-stakeholder way on ICT for development
> issues at national level.
> 
> I will ask the APC team to consider if the definition for
> multi-stakeholder needs to change. How do others feel?
> 
> And on definition of public interest... good to point out that we don't
> have that in our glossary. We should add it. Public good , but we use it a lot in APC and therefore we should add it
> to our glossary.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> APC glossary entry on 'multi-stakeholder'
> 
> A very broad term that describes groupings of civil society, the private
> sector, the public sector, the media and other stakeholders that come
> together for a common purpose. It is often used with words like
> “partnership” and “consultation”. In multi-stakeholder partnerships the
> partners have a shared understanding that they play different roles and
> have different purposes, but that they can pursue
> collective goals through collaboration and common activities to achieve
> such goals. These partnerships are voluntary, with participation driven
> by the perceived benefits they may see emerging from the process. Such
> partnerships are increasingly being used to challenge and lobby for
> change in policy processes.
> 
> Style information: APC uses multi-stakeholder with a hyphen between
> “multi” and “stakeholder”.
> 
> 
> 
> On 18/05/2015 05:45, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> > Parminder,
> > 
> > I did not just rely on Wikipedia. (That would be another n of 1.)
> > 
> > My point was to reply to the question: Does "multistakeholder" now have
> > a stable definition?
> > 
> >>The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and where he
> > distinguishes between types even.
> >>The second entry is a glossary entry from APC. 
> >>The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.
> > 
> > There is another common factor in the APC and the ICANNWiki entries:
> > there is no glossary entry for public interest in either of them.
> > 
> > I leave you to interpret what that means. 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > Peng Hwa
> > 
> > From: Parminder Singh 
> > >
> > Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 11:28 am
> > To: Ang Peng Hwa >,
> > Williams Deirde  > >, Internet Governance
> > >
> > Cc: BestBitsList  > >, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org"
> > >
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
> > Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> > 
> > Peng Hwa
> > 
> > Since you seem to rely on wikipedia, before declaring that although
> > 'everyone knows what knows what multi stakeholder is' 'public interest
> > is a problematic concept' (both direct quotes from your email) did you
> > look up 'public interest' in wikipedia? Well, here it is
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest
> > 
> > A comparative assessment of the two entries in wikipedia - respectively
> > on MSism (multistakeholderism) and public interest - would make clear
> > which one is clearer and less contested term.
> > 
> > Which in turn clearly proves that an assertion in favour of 'clarity' of
> > the MS term with respect to the 'public interest' term is not based on
> > any kind of facts or on existing body of civilisational knoweldge . It
> > is merely ideological, which was my prior point. And the fact that a
> > regional IGF process takes such a bias as a given - and does not correct
> > itself even when the 'error' is pointed out - makes a important
> > political point, which is the political point that I have been trying to
> > make..
> > 
> > parminder
> > 
> > On Monday 18 May 2015 06:45 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> >> Deirdre,
> >>
> >> Google
> >> multistakeholder.https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=multistakeholder&oq=multistakeholder&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j69i65l2.2580j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8
> >>
> >> The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and where he
> >> distinguishes between types even.
> >>
> >> The second entry is a glossary entry from APC. 
> >>
> >> The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.
> >>
> >> Like many words, there is a “core” meaning and moving beyond that,
> >> more than 50 shades of greying that keeps academics employed.
> >>
> >> Regards, 
> >> Ang Peng Hwa
> >>
> >> From: Williams Deirde  >> >
> >> Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 2:04 am
> >> To: Internet Governance  >> >, Ang Peng Hwa
> >> >
> >> Cc: Parminder Singh 
> >> >, BestBitsList
> >> >,
> >> "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org"  >> >
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
> >> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> >>
> >> "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy."
> >>
> >> Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not
> >> trying to pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the problem is
> >> that everyone /doesn't/ know, or rather that everyone doesn't agree.
> >> "Multistakeholder" seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty" word -
> >> 'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
> >> 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
> >> (from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll
> >> /http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php)
> >> I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where the term
> >> is used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used.
> >> Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does
> >> "multistakeholderism"?
> >> Best wishes
> >> Deirdre
> >>
> >> On 17 May 2015 at 11:13, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
> >>
> >> What a curious (mis)reading.
> >>
> >> First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of
> >> “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would
> >> not want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.
> >>
> >> Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic
> >> concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time
> >> to discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what
> >> multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could
> >> discuss it as a panel if you wish.
> >>
> >> It would of course have to be next year.
> >>
> >> But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline.
> >> Not because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic
> >> conception.
> >>
> >> Regards, 
> >> Peng Hwa
> >>
> >> From: Parminder Singh 
> >> >
> >> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> "
> >>  >> >, Parminder Singh
> >> 
>
> >> Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
> >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> "
> >>  >> >, BestBitsList
> >>  >> >, "Forum at Justnetcoalition.
> >> Org" >
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress
> >> on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> >>
> >> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses:
> >> 'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' !
> >>
> >> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the
> >> multistakeholder Interest' ?
> >>
> >> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng
> >> Hwa, head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who
> >> strongly argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear
> >> concept but multistakeholder perspective or interest is much
> >> easier to establish.
> >>
> >> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops
> >> for the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
> >> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
> >> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This
> >> suggestion was not accepted. So, in fact, indeed the dominant
> >> groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public
> >> interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of
> >> 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
> >> evolution over it!
> >>
> >> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which,
> >> it is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG
> >> area are either a silent or active accomplices.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
> >> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
> >> and therefore its governance has to be different.... Well, lets
> >> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are
> >> intent to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is
> >> no more bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of
> >> trade and property, whose governance continue to be done in
> >> democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for
> >> the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic
> >> multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this
> >> space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history.
> >>
> >> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and
> >> public interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal
> >> space for the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG
> >> meeting... What really is the difference, other than that the
> >> discourse in the IG space has been captured by powerful forces
> >> before public interest actors could assert themselves. Civil
> >> society in this area must help in re-democraticing this area, and
> >> reclaiming 'public interest'.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
> >> importanr congress.
> >>
> >> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global
> >> congress on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to
> >> talk to those who may be interested.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
> >>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on
> >>> Intellectual
> >>> Property and Public Interest.
> >>>
> >>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
> >>> might be interested.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Geetha.
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: Swaraj Barooah
> >>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
> >>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
> >>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
> >>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the
> >>> Public
> >>> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress
> >>> will be
> >>> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now
> >>> inviting
> >>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
> >>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
> >>> panels and workshops.
> >>>
> >>> The application form is available now at
> >>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note
> >>> that this
> >>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to
> >>> confirmation of
> >>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
> >>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global
> >>> Congress.
> >>>
> >>> Deadlines
> >>>
> >>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
> >>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
> >>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
> >>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
> >>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
> >>>
> >>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
> >>> submissions will close on November 1st.
> >>>
> >>> Application Information
> >>>
> >>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
> >>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be
> >>> submitted in
> >>> the form.
> >>>
> >>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend
> >>> sessions as
> >>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose
> >>> and/or
> >>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
> >>>
> >>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
> >>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
> >>> countries.
> >>>
> >>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
> >>>
> >>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
> >>> Interest is
> >>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
> >>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
> >>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
> >>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are
> >>> empowered to
> >>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
> >>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in
> >>> 2012, and
> >>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
> >>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
> >>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
> >>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the
> >>> world's most
> >>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual
> >>> property
> >>> policy can best serve the public interest.
> >>>
> >>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research,
> >>> civil
> >>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities
> >>> together
> >>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
> >>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are
> >>> rare but
> >>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
> >>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December,
> >>> 2015 in
> >>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
> >>>
> >>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
> >>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection,
> >>> revision, and
> >>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to
> >>> produce
> >>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly
> >>> research
> >>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business
> >>> leaders and
> >>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
> >>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
> >>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy
> >>> agenda;
> >>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary,
> >>> cross-sector and
> >>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest
> >>> aspects
> >>> of IP policy and practice.
> >>>
> >>> Participation Opportunities
> >>>
> >>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
> >>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the
> >>> room of
> >>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
> >>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
> >>>
> >>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2)
> >>> Access
> >>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
> >>>
> >>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
> >>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
> >>> interest.
> >>>
> >>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research
> >>> outputs such
> >>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
> >>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global
> >>> Congress
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing
> >>> conference
> >>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they
> >>> may share
> >>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
> >>> aforementioned sessions.
> >>>
> >>> The application form for participation is available now
> >>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward
> >>> this
> >>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more
> >>> information or
> >>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>> Organisation
> >>>
> >>> The Centre for Internet and Society 
> >>> serves as the
> >>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
> >>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law
> >>> University,
> >>> Delhi  .
> >>>
> >>> The implementing partners arethe 
> >>> American
> >>> Assembly 
> >>> at Columbia University in New
> >>> York,Open A.I.R 
> >>> ., and theProgram on
> >>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property
> >>>  at
> >>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
> >>>
> >>> Swaraj Barooah
> >>>
> >>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
> >>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
> >>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
> >>>
> >>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com 
> >>> 
> >>> Founder, Know-GAP
> >>> Twitter: @swarajpb
> >>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ____________________________________________________________
> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> >> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >> >
> >> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >> >
> >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >> SG50
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s)
> >> named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not
> >> the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not
> >> copy, use, or disclose its contents.
> >> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> 
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> >> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> > 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150520/fa9f0622/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  Wed May 20 10:41:23 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:41:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] Public interest and multi-stakeholder participation,
 was Re: [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress ..
In-Reply-To: <307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net> <D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org> <307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20>
Message-ID: <555C9D13.7030803@apc.org>

Dear Jean-Louis

I don't personally use the 'equal footing' term. Configuration of
participation depends on the issue being discussed and accountability
involved. The term equal footing creates unnecessary confusion and can
be interpreted as saying that government and public sector actors don't
have an important role or specific responsibilities. It can also be abused.

If one is developing a national action plan on local content creation
having all different stakeholders involved 'equally' would be good, but
I would want to see particularly strong participation of people from
libraries, arts and culture and education ministries, content and
creative industries and so on. I would like to see large entertainment
companies, but also small independent producers and film makers, writers
and artists and people from cultural minorities.

I would be concerned if government or big business had a louder voice in
this discussion than other stakeholders, as that might end up silencing
some voices, and reducing diversity of views. But that does not mean
that we don't need to hear from government, or from big business.
Although I would hope they use the opportunity to listen, not just speak.

If it is a decision about how to tax global internet companies they
should have a voice in the pre-policy consultation process, but they
should not be making the decision. That is a decision that needs to be
made - transparently - by governments and intergovernmental
institutions. I would like civil society to be involved in this and I
would like public-interest economists to give input, and for the media
to be present so that we have more transparency. And I would like the
tax collection agencies to speak too.... as they know whether compliance
is likely to take place or not.

On public interest.. for me the power of this concept is that it opens a
debate. It forces a discussion on what the broadest possible public
interest is. Just having a room full of different stakeholders will
bring you diversity, but they might just all talk about what it is
matters most to them as interest or stakeholder groups. So governments
might talk about national security, operators about intermediary
liability, civil society about freedom of expression...

...but if the obligation of the discussion is to serve the broadest
possible public interest they must all make the case of WHY the position
they are advocating for will serve that interest, and state how they
understand the public interest.

And one should not make assumptions about who will argue for what. E.g
in some countries at present, small private sector content producers are
much more concerned with having a publicly funded public broadcaster
than government is. To assume that governments are in all cases the most
reliable custodians of the 'public interest' is wishful thinking.

Perhaps I am being naive, but in my view having a public-interest
orientation makes a big difference. And that is why I was so pleased
when the NETmundial statement said that internet governance should be in
the public interest.

It defines a common purpose, and a common measure - even if there will
still be different views of what serves the public interest best.

I often say to telecom regulators - am actually in an event with African
regulators this minute - that their role is not primarily to balance
interests among operators - their role is to protect and promote the
interest of users/consumers/the public.

Jean-Louis, I will not be in Geneva, but from APC there will be Shawna
Finnegan from APC staff for part of it, and Aida Mahmutovic who is on
APC's member council, representing our member in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Warm greetings

Anriette


On 20/05/2015 15:15, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:
> Dear Anriette
> 
>  
> 
> Public interest " generally has different
>> meanings for different people and in different countries, for lawyers,
>> for activists"
> 
>  
> 
> Don't the same remarks/restrictions apply to Multistakeholderism ? Do
> you see e.g. Burkina Faso government on "equal footing" with Google or
> other GAFA-like enterprises ? Not to mention BF Civil society orgs ?
> 
>  
> 
> Best
> 
>  
> 
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> 
>  
> 
> PS : BTW will you and/or APC take part in the next week WSIS Forum at
> Geneva ? 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>     > Message du 20/05/15 12:05
>     > De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org>
>     > A : "Internet Governance" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     > Copie à : "BestBitsList" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,
>     "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org>, "APC ICT
>     policy advocacy" <apc.policy at lists.apc.org>, "lori at apc.org"
>     <lori at apc.org>
>     > Objet : Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global
>     Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>     >
>     > Dear all
>     >
>     > It is really good to see the reference to the APC.glossary. So happy
>     > that people are still using it. We developed it a long time ago
>     when ICT
>     > terms were still evolving.
>     >
>     > The definition of the term 'multi-stakeholder' dates back to around
>     > 2004/5 when we were doing work at national level to facilitate
>     > collaboration around access to infrastructure, and also when we
>     produced
>     > a guide to organising national WSIS consultations. So it reflects our
>     > history in working in a multi-stakeholder way on ICT for development
>     > issues at national level.
>     >
>     > I will ask the APC team to consider if the definition for
>     > multi-stakeholder needs to change. How do others feel?
>     >
>     > And on definition of public interest... good to point out that we
>     don't
>     > have that in our glossary. We should add it. Public good , but we
>     use it a lot in APC and therefore we should add it
>     > to our glossary.
>     >
>     > Anriette
>     >
>     > APC glossary entry on 'multi-stakeholder'
>     >
>     > A very broad term that describes groupings of civil society, the
>     private
>     > sector, the public sector, the media and other stakeholders that come
>     > together for a common purpose. It is often used with words like
>     > “partnership” and “consultation”. In multi-stakeholder
>     partnerships the
>     > partners have a shared understanding that they play different
>     roles and
>     > have different purposes, but that they can pursue
>     > collective goals through collaboration and common activities to
>     achieve
>     > such goals. These partnerships are voluntary, with participation
>     driven
>     > by the perceived benefits they may see emerging from the process. Such
>     > partnerships are increasingly being used to challenge and lobby for
>     > change in policy processes.
>     >
>     > Style information: APC uses multi-stakeholder with a hyphen between
>     > “multi” and “stakeholder”.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On 18/05/2015 05:45, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>     > > Parminder,
>     > >
>     > > I did not just rely on Wikipedia. (That would be another n of 1.)
>     > >
>     > > My point was to reply to the question: Does "multistakeholder"
>     now have
>     > > a stable definition?
>     > >
>     > >>The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and
>     where he
>     > > distinguishes between types even.
>     > >>The second entry is a glossary entry from APC.
>     > >>The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.
>     > >
>     > > There is another common factor in the APC and the ICANNWiki entries:
>     > > there is no glossary entry for public interest in either of them.
>     > >
>     > > I leave you to interpret what that means.
>     > >
>     > > Regards,
>     > > Peng Hwa
>     > >
>     > > From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
>     > > <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>     > > Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 11:28 am
>     > > To: Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>,
>     > > Williams Deirde <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
>     > > <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>>, Internet Governance
>     > > <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>     > > Cc: BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     > > <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org"
>     > > <forum at justnetcoalition.org <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
>     > > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
>     > > Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>     > >
>     > > Peng Hwa
>     > >
>     > > Since you seem to rely on wikipedia, before declaring that although
>     > > 'everyone knows what knows what multi stakeholder is' 'public
>     interest
>     > > is a problematic concept' (both direct quotes from your email)
>     did you
>     > > look up 'public interest' in wikipedia? Well, here it is
>     > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest
>     > >
>     > > A comparative assessment of the two entries in wikipedia -
>     respectively
>     > > on MSism (multistakeholderism) and public interest - would make
>     clear
>     > > which one is clearer and less contested term.
>     > >
>     > > Which in turn clearly proves that an assertion in favour of
>     'clarity' of
>     > > the MS term with respect to the 'public interest' term is not
>     based on
>     > > any kind of facts or on existing body of civilisational
>     knoweldge . It
>     > > is merely ideological, which was my prior point. And the fact that a
>     > > regional IGF process takes such a bias as a given - and does not
>     correct
>     > > itself even when the 'error' is pointed out - makes a important
>     > > political point, which is the political point that I have been
>     trying to
>     > > make..
>     > >
>     > > parminder
>     > >
>     > > On Monday 18 May 2015 06:45 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>     > >> Deirdre,
>     > >>
>     > >> Google
>     > >>
>     multistakeholder.https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=multistakeholder&oq=multistakeholder&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j69i65l2.2580j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8
>     > >>
>     > >> The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and
>     where he
>     > >> distinguishes between types even.
>     > >>
>     > >> The second entry is a glossary entry from APC.
>     > >>
>     > >> The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.
>     > >>
>     > >> Like many words, there is a “core” meaning and moving beyond that,
>     > >> more than 50 shades of greying that keeps academics employed.
>     > >>
>     > >> Regards,
>     > >> Ang Peng Hwa
>     > >>
>     > >> From: Williams Deirde <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
>     > >> <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>>
>     > >> Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 2:04 am
>     > >> To: Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     > >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Ang Peng Hwa
>     > >> <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>
>     > >> Cc: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
>     > >> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>, BestBitsList
>     > >> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
>     > >> "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org
>     > >> <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
>     > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global
>     Congress on
>     > >> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>     > >>
>     > >> "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy."
>     > >>
>     > >> Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not
>     > >> trying to pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the
>     problem is
>     > >> that everyone /doesn't/ know, or rather that everyone doesn't
>     agree.
>     > >> "Multistakeholder" seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty"
>     word -
>     > >> 'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
>     tone,
>     > >> 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
>     > >> (from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll
>     > >> /http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php)
>     > >> I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where
>     the term
>     > >> is used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used.
>     > >> Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does
>     > >> "multistakeholderism"?
>     > >> Best wishes
>     > >> Deirdre
>     > >>
>     > >> On 17 May 2015 at 11:13, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg
>     > >> <mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>> wrote:
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >> >So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF
>     process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic
>     concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest
>     is a positive political evolution over it!
>     > >>
>     > >> What a curious (mis)reading.
>     > >>
>     > >> First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of
>     > >> “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would
>     > >> not want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.
>     > >>
>     > >> Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic
>     > >> concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time
>     > >> to discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what
>     > >> multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could
>     > >> discuss it as a panel if you wish.
>     > >>
>     > >> It would of course have to be next year.
>     > >>
>     > >> But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline.
>     > >> Not because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic
>     > >> conception.
>     > >>
>     > >> Regards,
>     > >> Peng Hwa
>     > >>
>     > >> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
>     > >> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>     > >> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     > >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>     > >> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     > >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
>     > >> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>     > >> Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
>     > >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     > >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>     > >> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     > >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList
>     > >> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     > >> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition.
>     > >> Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org
>     <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
>     > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress
>     > >> on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>     > >>
>     > >> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses:
>     > >> 'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' !
>     > >>
>     > >> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the
>     > >> multistakeholder Interest' ?
>     > >>
>     > >> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng
>     > >> Hwa, head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who
>     > >> strongly argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear
>     > >> concept but multistakeholder perspective or interest is much
>     > >> easier to establish.
>     > >>
>     > >> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops
>     > >> for the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>     > >> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>     > >> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This
>     > >> suggestion was not accepted. So, in fact, indeed the dominant
>     > >> groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public
>     > >> interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of
>     > >> 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
>     > >> evolution over it!
>     > >>
>     > >> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which,
>     > >> it is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG
>     > >> area are either a silent or active accomplices.
>     > >>
>     > >> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>     > >> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>     > >> and therefore its governance has to be different.... Well, lets
>     > >> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are
>     > >> intent to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is
>     > >> no more bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of
>     > >> trade and property, whose governance continue to be done in
>     > >> democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for
>     > >> the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic
>     > >> multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this
>     > >> space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer to
>     history.
>     > >>
>     > >> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and
>     > >> public interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal
>     > >> space for the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG
>     > >> meeting... What really is the difference, other than that the
>     > >> discourse in the IG space has been captured by powerful forces
>     > >> before public interest actors could assert themselves. Civil
>     > >> society in this area must help in re-democraticing this area, and
>     > >> reclaiming 'public interest'.
>     > >>
>     > >> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>     > >> importanr congress.
>     > >>
>     > >> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global
>     > >> congress on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to
>     > >> talk to those who may be interested.
>     > >>
>     > >> parminder
>     > >>
>     > >> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>     > >>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on
>     > >>> Intellectual
>     > >>> Property and Public Interest.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you
>     think
>     > >>> might be interested.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Best,
>     > >>> Geetha.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     > >>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>     > >>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>     > >>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>     > >>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Dear all,
>     > >>>
>     > >>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the
>     fourth
>     > >>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the
>     > >>> Public
>     > >>> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress
>     > >>> will be
>     > >>> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now
>     > >>> inviting
>     > >>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>     > >>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming
>     proposals for
>     > >>> panels and workshops.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> The application form is available now at
>     > >>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note
>     > >>> that this
>     > >>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to
>     > >>> confirmation of
>     > >>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions,
>     which are
>     > >>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global
>     > >>> Congress.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Deadlines
>     > >>>
>     > >>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>     > >>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by
>     August 1st
>     > >>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>     > >>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under
>     exceptional
>     > >>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent
>     form).
>     > >>>
>     > >>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>     > >>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Application Information
>     > >>>
>     > >>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present
>     or host
>     > >>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be
>     > >>> submitted in
>     > >>> the form.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend
>     > >>> sessions as
>     > >>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose
>     > >>> and/or
>     > >>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>     > >>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>     > >>> countries.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>     > >>>
>     > >>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>     > >>> Interest is
>     > >>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>     > >>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>     > >>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the
>     network of
>     > >>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are
>     > >>> empowered to
>     > >>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global
>     Congress
>     > >>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in
>     > >>> 2012, and
>     > >>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will
>     now be
>     > >>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the
>     largest
>     > >>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>     > >>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the
>     > >>> world's most
>     > >>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual
>     > >>> property
>     > >>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research,
>     > >>> civil
>     > >>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities
>     > >>> together
>     > >>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>     > >>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are
>     > >>> rare but
>     > >>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy
>     outcomes.
>     > >>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December,
>     > >>> 2015 in
>     > >>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>     > >>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection,
>     > >>> revision, and
>     > >>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to
>     > >>> produce
>     > >>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly
>     > >>> research
>     > >>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business
>     > >>> leaders and
>     > >>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>     > >>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and
>     local
>     > >>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy
>     > >>> agenda;
>     > >>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary,
>     > >>> cross-sector and
>     > >>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest
>     > >>> aspects
>     > >>> of IP policy and practice.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Participation Opportunities
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the
>     form of
>     > >>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the
>     > >>> room of
>     > >>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track
>     sessions,
>     > >>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2)
>     > >>> Access
>     > >>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across
>     tracks in
>     > >>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>     > >>> interest.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research
>     > >>> outputs such
>     > >>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly
>     within the
>     > >>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global
>     > >>> Congress
>     > >>> .
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing
>     > >>> conference
>     > >>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they
>     > >>> may share
>     > >>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>     > >>> aforementioned sessions.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> The application form for participation is available now
>     > >>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward
>     > >>> this
>     > >>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more
>     > >>> information or
>     > >>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>     > >>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
>     > >>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
>     > >>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Organisation
>     > >>>
>     > >>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>
>     > >>> <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>     > >>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual
>     Property and
>     > >>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law
>     > >>> University,
>     > >>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/> <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>
>     > >>> <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>     > >>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>
>     > >>> <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>     > >>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>
>     > >>> <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>     > >>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property
>     > >>> <http://www.pijip.org/> <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>     > >>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Swaraj Barooah
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>     > >>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>     > >>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com>
>     > >>> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>     > >>> Founder, Know-GAP
>     > >>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>     > >>>
>     > >> >
>     > >> >
>     > >> > ____________________________________________________________
>     > >> > 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
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >> SG50
>     > >>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > >> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s)
>     > >> named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not
>     > >> the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not
>     > >> copy, use, or disclose its contents.
>     > >> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
>     > >>
>     > >> ____________________________________________________________
>     > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     > >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     > >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>     > >>
>     > >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>     > >>
>     > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >> --
>     > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>     > >> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > ____________________________________________________________
>     > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>     > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>     > >
>     >
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     > To be removed from the list, visit:
>     > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>     >
>     > For all other list information and functions, see:
>     > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     > To edit your 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 dave at difference.com.au  Wed May 20 11:56:24 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:56:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] Why?
In-Reply-To: <E1YuqV0-0000bl-WE@igcaucus.org>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au> <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net> <E1YuqV0-0000bl-WE@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <956C43B7-D951-4674-8926-B26D2438A3A6@difference.com.au>

Dear JFC,

As a general observation, your enthusiasm for wordplay, neologisms and new inventive acronyms  (MULTICANN, BUG, MYCANN-Plugs-in, is sometimes witty, sometimes entertaining, sometimes clever, and usually confusing and obuscatory and not helpful to allowing others to understand your argument.

Regards

David

> On 20 May 2015, at 1:02 am, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Wolfgang,
> 
> Your question is pertinent. My response will be simple: the Civil Society that we have is inadequate because in the global network power game it has no power. You are right, it had some influence. This was when the private sector was learning how to adapt and use the liberal activists to better reach the conservative consumers. This period is over: CS people travel and stay at hotels at the private sector’s expenses and/or as part of some national delegations. The ICANN Internet has lost its disruptive interest. It has become a business road.
> 
> The activist power was in the technology and innovation. Nothing has basically changed since 1983.1.1. IETF was created in 1986 by the USG to make sure that everything would be and would stay NSA-compatible. (I was made to close my innovation shop - and its RFC 923 16 million IP addresses :-) at that date by McDD). And ever since, everyone, including Governments, Militaries, Businesses, Merchants, etc. have been happy with this. In 1998, after Jon Postel started toying with the US root, they created the unique root 13 server legend (proving that he could not have technically done what he had :-)). And every digitally illiterate activist was happy with it.
> 
> Then, progressively, China split from the ICANN's joke, with a local multiroot system. South Korea and China toyed with Aliases. This raised concerns among the private sector enough to consider an upgrade of the StatUS-quo strategy. The I*Core was revamped. At-large was framed in an obedient CS support organization. Industries reviewed their stands (Unicode, IEEE, W3C) with the ISOC help (and a State Department contractor). The update was ready in Aug 2012 before Dubai: it survived becoming a minority position vs. the Governments. Snowden helped a lot in delaying them (the US NSA bashing was a good point against every national NSA). In this multilateral vs multistakeholderism confrontation, there is a lot that the CS does not even understand anymore in the mentally engineered  “technopolitically correct” context, and is also powerless to impose omnistakeholderism. Omniconsumerism has taken the lead, RosettaNet and the WEF are the Internet future. The NTIA has changed the WSIS State/Civil Society/Private Sector/Internationa organization enhanced cooperation multstakeholderism, into a business multitakeholderism where States are accepted on an equal footing basis with ICANN, GAFAMs, USCC, etc.
> 
> My reading is simple. In our area, all of these are patches for a BUG. That BUG is the ICANN design to Be Unilaterally Global. As long as the NTIA is its sponsor, the BUG is a feature. Unfortunately, the CS activists are not any better than the IAB as architects because they have not worked enough on the reality's root. Not the root of the DNS, but rather the root of our changing (technological singularity) society, i.e. at the architectonical layer; what is changing man in changing the digital environment. This only means that CS activists are depressed. And they do not know how to revive themselves, i.e. to get some power back.
> 
> Your new CS generation is simple to imagine. It will resume the pre-1985 non-NSA-constrained visionary path. Relational space oriented, Multitechnology, multioverlay physical and virtual architecture, OSI layer six presentation layer for security, extended intelligent services, multilingualism, etc. The second objective of “The catenet model for internetworking” of Vint Cerf's (IEN 48).
> 
> The practical question now is how many CS activists will join in asking the IAB/IETF to provide guidance on full TCP/IP internet technology use, in a MULTICANN context, and support the emergence of BUG fixes, at individual user level through the proliferation of "MYCANN-Plugs-in". Then, you will see a real pre-revolutionary debate. Please remember that in the IoT context every CPU is a weapon: we have not yet started considering the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_smart_grid_protocol OSGP issue. Should CS be technically aware ...
> 
> The real CS need as regards the global digital illiteracy is to increase literacy. The real task of CS people is to teach people what the internet is. A single authoritative internet book, rather than 8,000 RFCs. There are the so-called Names, Numbers, and Protocols Communities. The really missing one is the Unique Master Documentation Community. Then you will have a debate (1) about what the Internet technology can do (2) how to use it (3) how to extend, improve, and replace it depending on what you want to achieve and how.
> 
> Discussing goals that you do not know how to achieve is rather boring. The CS is bored.
> 
> Cheers!
> jfc
> 
> At 16:01 19/05/2015, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>> Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>> Content-class: urn:content-classes:messages
>> 
>> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
>> 
>> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have overtaken the discussion.
>> 
>> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
>> Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
>> An: David Cake
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
>> > My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
>> > stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
>> > constructed, and public interest a description of its content.
>> 
>> David
>> If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I
>> were arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals
>> spoke of 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not
>> structure....
>> 
>> The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or
>> main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an
>> inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."
>> 
>> I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
>> replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
>> always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure
>> of workshop.
>> 
>> I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
>> structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder
>> 'structure' of a workshop.
>> 
>> But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a
>> certain sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please
>> lets not do it and stick to the specific context.  (More below)
>> 
>> 
>> > One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
>> > thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
>> > it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
>> > customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
>> > frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
>> > multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
>> > multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
>> > 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>> >
>> > That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
>> > a problematic term.
>> 
>> There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
>> interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time
>> as claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that
>> 'determination of what is public interest in a given context is never
>> easy, or even a problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes
>> public interest in a given context was not problematic we will not need
>> politics and democracy. The latter institutions exist almost entirely to
>> obtain a good and fair determination of what is pulbic interest, which
>> they are still never able to do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do
>> not confuse between 'public interest being a problematic term' and
>> 'determination of what is public interest in any given context being
>> problematic'.
>> 
>> 
>> > The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
>> > apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
>> > power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
>> > (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
>> > counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
>> > increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
>> > public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
>> > immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
>> > to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
>> > Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
>> > lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
>> > Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
>> > gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
>> > to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
>> > justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
>> > lobby group.
>> >
>> > This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
>> > interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
>> > have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
>> > understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
>> > valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
>> > think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
>> > sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
>> > problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
>> > much deeper discussion.
>> 
>> Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
>> property and public interest', here is the list of participants
>> <http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>of
>> the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
>> scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
>> hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
>> oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
>> this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
>> understand the term in the Internet governance space.
>> /*
>> *//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
>> public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
>> assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
>> public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
>> (called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
>> or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
>> participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
>> like to answer this key question.*/
>> 
>> As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
>> exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
>> (more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
>> (more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
>> but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>> >
>> > But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
>> > from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
>> > to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.
>> 
>> David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
>> somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
>> proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
>> were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
>> not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
>> UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
>> use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
>> because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
>> see as carrying any baggage).
>> 
>> The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
>> problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
>> decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
>> (as carrying baggage) and so on.....
>> 
>> Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
>> process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
>> theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
>> do much.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> > On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> > <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>> >> Property and the Public Interest' !
>> >>
>> >> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>> >> Interest' ?
>> >>
>> >> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>> >> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>> >> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>> >> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>> >>
>> >> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>> >> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>> >> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>> >> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>> >> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>> >> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>> >> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>> >> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>> >>
>> >> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>> >> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>> >> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>> >>
>> >> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>> >> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>> >> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>> >> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>> >> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>> >> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>> >> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>> >> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>> >> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>> >> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>> >> society will have to answer to history.
>> >>
>> >> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>> >> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>> >> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>> >> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>> >> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>> >> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>> >> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>> >>
>> >> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>> >> importanr congress.
>> >>
>> >> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>> >> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>> >> who may be interested.
>> >>
>> >> parminder
>> >>
>> >> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>> >>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>> >>> Property and Public Interest.
>> >>>
>> >>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>> >>> might be interested.
>> >>>
>> >>> Best,
>> >>> Geetha.
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>> >>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>> >>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>> >>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>>
>> >>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>> >>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>> >>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>> >>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>> >>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>> >>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>> >>> panels and workshops.
>> >>>
>> >>> The application form is available now at
>> >>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>> >>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>> >>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>> >>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>> >>>
>> >>> Deadlines
>> >>>
>> >>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>> >>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>> >>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>> >>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>> >>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>> >>>
>> >>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>> >>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>> >>>
>> >>> Application Information
>> >>>
>> >>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>> >>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>> >>> the form.
>> >>>
>> >>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>> >>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>> >>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>> >>>
>> >>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>> >>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>> >>> countries.
>> >>>
>> >>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>> >>>
>> >>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>> >>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>> >>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>> >>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>> >>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>> >>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>> >>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>> >>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>> >>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>> >>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>> >>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>> >>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>> >>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>> >>>
>> >>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>> >>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>> >>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>> >>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>> >>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>> >>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>> >>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>> >>>
>> >>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>> >>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>> >>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>> >>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>> >>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>> >>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>> >>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>> >>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>> >>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>> >>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>> >>> of IP policy and practice.
>> >>>
>> >>> Participation Opportunities
>> >>>
>> >>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>> >>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>> >>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>> >>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>> >>>
>> >>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>> >>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>> >>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>> >>> interest.
>> >>>
>> >>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>> >>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>> >>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>> >>> .
>> >>>
>> >>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>> >>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>> >>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>> >>> aforementioned sessions.
>> >>>
>> >>> The application form for participation is available now
>> >>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>> >>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>> >>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>> >>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>> >>>
>> >>> Organisation
>> >>>
>> >>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>> >>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>> >>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>> >>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>> >>>
>> >>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>> >>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>> >>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>> >>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>> >>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>> >>>
>> >>> Swaraj Barooah
>> >>>
>> >>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>> >>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>> >>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>> >>>
>> >>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>> >>> Founder, Know-GAP
>> >>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>> >>>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ____________________________________________________________
>> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >> >
>> >> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >> >
>> >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> Content-Disposition: inline
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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/20150520/9f0229c9/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Wed May 20 13:11:44 2015
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 19:11:44 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
Message-ID: <476634251.24181.1432141904637.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e19>

Bertrand

 

I partly agree with your views but the concluding question you raise lets me confused or,in plain french, sidéré :

 




 

Thus, in your opinion the WEF/IGF is given the capacity to address anthroplogic, cultural, social, societal, ethical and minorities' issues that are in the center of any "information society" ? 

 

This opinion explains much better as any long discurse the "shift" of some "CS" groups in the WSIS process that Wolfgang is questioning (I think he has forgotten some of our "lively" debates in CS plenaries when Bill (Mc Iver) then Sally (Burch) chaired them).

 

regards


 

Jean-Louis Fullsack


  


 

 

 

> Message du 19/05/15 20:28
> De : "Bertrand de La Chapelle" 
> A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Michael Gurstein" 
> Copie à : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 
> Objet : [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
> 
>
Michael,

> 
I am not sure I see what you mean below by "working to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"? 

> 
What surely could undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it will most likely be less open to non-state actors - and civil society in particular - than the WSIS itself 10 years ago. Unless things have changed, and according to the excellent summary by APC: 

> 

the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the high-level meeting of the General Assembly".


> 
For sure, modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders are supposed to be put in place, but there is a big question mark in that regard at the moment, isn't it?

> 
In that context, maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the IGF 2015. Why don't we make it so? 

> 
Best

> 
Bertrand







 


"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry
> ("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")


 



>


 







>
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein  wrote:
>
Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
> that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the leading
> "civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and UKG
> (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS
> +10 process.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
> Wolfgang"
> Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
> 

Subject: [governance] Why?
> 
> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list
> is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am
> right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played
> an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to
> look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
> processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why
> people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
> century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send,
> be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the
> CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
> 
> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
> overtaken the discussion.
> 
> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of
> younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
> real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
> energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
> multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
> between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
> (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of
> the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It
> is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this
> oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
>


>


>




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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150520/6836d6e6/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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Wed May 20 13:20:43 2015
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:20:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Public interest and multi-stakeholder
 participation, was Re: [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 ..
In-Reply-To: <555C9D13.7030803@apc.org>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net> <D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org> <307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> <555C9D13.7030803@apc.org>
Message-ID: <240F45B0-9EAC-442A-B698-A09C0239C59B@gmail.com>

This is one of the best expositions of the multi-stakeholder model and the importance of the orientation toward the global public interest that I have ever seen.  Thank you, Anriette.

In some quarters, multi-stakeholderism has almost become a religion, to be accepted on faith, with doubters shunned and excluded.  IMO this is counterproductive both to understanding the possibilities of multi-stakeholderism and to employing when it is the right model to use.   As Annette implies, there are all sorts of implementations of multi-stakeholderism, some where people come together on an equal footing, some not. Multi-stakeholder organizations are a means for achieving a goal, and it's the nature of the goal that affects who are to be considered the stakeholders and how they should be included in the multi-stakeholder process.  The goal is the important element, and determines the means. 

I like Annette's discussion of the public interest, and how it opens a debate.  

Multi-stakehoder processes exist because there are competing interests at play.  The hope is that this form of organization will be effective in producing a least unacceptable output across the set of stakeholders.  Different stakeholders will naturally claim that their point of view is the best, and Annette's requirement that they define their view of the public interest and then state why their approach best serves it.  Shedding this kind of light on a decision is likely to produce one of the better outcomes possible.

Thank you again, Annette.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

   
On May 20, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear Jean-Louis
> 
> I don't personally use the 'equal footing' term. Configuration of
> participation depends on the issue being discussed and accountability
> involved. The term equal footing creates unnecessary confusion and can
> be interpreted as saying that government and public sector actors don't
> have an important role or specific responsibilities. It can also be abused.
> 
> If one is developing a national action plan on local content creation
> having all different stakeholders involved 'equally' would be good, but
> I would want to see particularly strong participation of people from
> libraries, arts and culture and education ministries, content and
> creative industries and so on. I would like to see large entertainment
> companies, but also small independent producers and film makers, writers
> and artists and people from cultural minorities.
> 
> I would be concerned if government or big business had a louder voice in
> this discussion than other stakeholders, as that might end up silencing
> some voices, and reducing diversity of views. But that does not mean
> that we don't need to hear from government, or from big business.
> Although I would hope they use the opportunity to listen, not just speak.
> 
> If it is a decision about how to tax global internet companies they
> should have a voice in the pre-policy consultation process, but they
> should not be making the decision. That is a decision that needs to be
> made - transparently - by governments and intergovernmental
> institutions. I would like civil society to be involved in this and I
> would like public-interest economists to give input, and for the media
> to be present so that we have more transparency. And I would like the
> tax collection agencies to speak too.... as they know whether compliance
> is likely to take place or not.
> 
> On public interest.. for me the power of this concept is that it opens a
> debate. It forces a discussion on what the broadest possible public
> interest is. Just having a room full of different stakeholders will
> bring you diversity, but they might just all talk about what it is
> matters most to them as interest or stakeholder groups. So governments
> might talk about national security, operators about intermediary
> liability, civil society about freedom of expression...
> 
> ...but if the obligation of the discussion is to serve the broadest
> possible public interest they must all make the case of WHY the position
> they are advocating for will serve that interest, and state how they
> understand the public interest.
> 
> And one should not make assumptions about who will argue for what. E.g
> in some countries at present, small private sector content producers are
> much more concerned with having a publicly funded public broadcaster
> than government is. To assume that governments are in all cases the most
> reliable custodians of the 'public interest' is wishful thinking.
> 
> Perhaps I am being naive, but in my view having a public-interest
> orientation makes a big difference. And that is why I was so pleased
> when the NETmundial statement said that internet governance should be in
> the public interest.
> 
> It defines a common purpose, and a common measure - even if there will
> still be different views of what serves the public interest best.
> 
> I often say to telecom regulators - am actually in an event with African
> regulators this minute - that their role is not primarily to balance
> interests among operators - their role is to protect and promote the
> interest of users/consumers/the public.
> 
> Jean-Louis, I will not be in Geneva, but from APC there will be Shawna
> Finnegan from APC staff for part of it, and Aida Mahmutovic who is on
> APC's member council, representing our member in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
> 
> Warm greetings
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 20/05/2015 15:15, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:
>> Dear Anriette
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Public interest " generally has different
>>> meanings for different people and in different countries, for lawyers,
>>> for activists"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Don't the same remarks/restrictions apply to Multistakeholderism ? Do
>> you see e.g. Burkina Faso government on "equal footing" with Google or
>> other GAFA-like enterprises ? Not to mention BF Civil society orgs ?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jean-Louis Fullsack


<<trimmed>>


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

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Wed May 20 13:46:48 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 14:46:48 -0300
Subject: [governance] Why?
In-Reply-To: <956C43B7-D951-4674-8926-B26D2438A3A6@difference.com.au>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au> <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net> <E1YuqV0-0000bl-WE@igcaucus.org> <956C43B7-D951-4674-8926-B26D2438A3A6@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <555CC888.1090600@gmail.com>


Dear David,

i respect your personal opinion. Your answer is not a result of general 
observation, because you can speak only for your self.

For me, this text from JFC is a real special text. JFC have a deep 
insight in the basic architecture of the internet. And also in the 
theatrical superstructure, what we give the name "Internet Governance".

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Why?
Datum: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:56:24 +0200
Von: David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Kopie (CC): BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

Dear JFC,

As a general observation, your enthusiasm for wordplay, neologisms and 
new inventive acronyms  (MULTICANN, BUG, MYCANN-Plugs-in, is sometimes 
witty, sometimes entertaining, sometimes clever, and usually confusing 
and obuscatory and not helpful to allowing others to understand your 
argument.

Regards, David



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Why?
Datum: Wed, 20 May 2015 01:02:59 +0200
Von: JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, parminder 
<parminder at itforchange.net>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
Kopie (CC): BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, 
Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>

Dear Wolfgang,

Your question is pertinent. My response will be simple: the Civil 
Society that we have is inadequate because in the global network power 
game it has no power. You are right, it had some influence. This was 
when the private sector was learning how to adapt and use the liberal 
activists to better reach the conservative consumers. This period is 
over: CS people travel and stay at hotels at the private sector’s 
expenses and/or as part of some national delegations. The ICANN Internet 
has lost its disruptive interest. It has become a business road.

The activist power was in the technology and innovation. Nothing has 
basically changed since 1983.1.1. IETF was created in 1986 by the USG to 
make sure that everything would be and would stay NSA-compatible. (I was 
made to close my innovation shop - and its RFC 923 16 million IP 
addresses :-) at that date by McDD). And ever since, everyone, including 
Governments, Militaries, Businesses, Merchants, etc. have been happy 
with this. In 1998, after Jon Postel started toying with the US root, 
they created the unique root 13 server legend (proving that he could not 
have technically done what he had :-)). And every digitally illiterate 
activist was happy with it.

Then, progressively, China split from the ICANN's joke, with a local 
multiroot system. South Korea and China toyed with Aliases. This raised 
concerns among the private sector enough to consider an upgrade of the 
StatUS-quo strategy. The I*Core was revamped. At-large was framed in an 
obedient CS support organization. Industries reviewed their stands 
(Unicode, IEEE, W3C) with the ISOC help (and a State Department 
contractor). The update was ready in Aug 2012 before Dubai: it survived 
becoming a minority position vs. the Governments. Snowden helped a lot 
in delaying them (the US NSA bashing was a good point against every 
national NSA). In this multilateral vs multistakeholderism 
confrontation, there is a lot that the CS does not even understand 
anymore in the mentally engineered  “technopolitically correct” context, 
and is also powerless to impose omnistakeholderism. Omniconsumerism has 
taken the lead, RosettaNet and the WEF are the Internet future. The NTIA 
has changed the WSIS State/Civil Society/Private Sector/Internationa 
organization enhanced cooperation multstakeholderism, into a business 
multitakeholderism where States are accepted on an equal footing basis 
with ICANN, GAFAMs, USCC, etc.

My reading is simple. In our area, all of these are patches for a BUG. 
That BUG is the ICANN design to Be Unilaterally Global. As long as the 
NTIA is its sponsor, the BUG is a feature. Unfortunately, the CS 
activists are not any better than the IAB as architects because they 
have not worked enough on the reality's root. Not the root of the DNS, 
but rather the root of our changing (technological singularity) society, 
i.e. at the architectonical layer; what is changing man in changing the 
digital environment. This only means that CS activists are depressed. 
And they do not know how to revive themselves, i.e. to get some power back.

Your new CS generation is simple to imagine. It will resume the pre-1985 
non-NSA-constrained visionary path. Relational space oriented, 
Multitechnology, multioverlay physical and virtual architecture, OSI 
layer six presentation layer for security, extended intelligent 
services, multilingualism, etc. The second objective of “The catenet 
model for internetworking” of Vint Cerf's (IEN 48).

The practical question now is how many CS activists will join in asking 
the IAB/IETF to provide guidance on full TCP/IP internet technology use, 
in a MULTICANN context, and support the emergence of BUG fixes, at 
individual user level through the proliferation of "MYCANN-Plugs-in". 
Then, you will see a real pre-revolutionary debate. Please remember that 
in the IoT context every CPU is a weapon: we have not yet started 
considering the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_smart_grid_protocol 
OSGP issue. Should CS be technically aware ...

The real CS need as regards the global digital illiteracy is to increase 
literacy. The real task of CS people is to teach people what the 
internet is. A single authoritative internet book, rather than 8,000 
RFCs. There are the so-called Names, Numbers, and Protocols Communities. 
The really missing one is the Unique Master Documentation Community. 
Then you will have a debate (1) about what the Internet technology can 
do (2) how to use it (3) how to extend, improve, and replace it 
depending on what you want to achieve and how.

Discussing goals that you do not know how to achieve is rather boring. 
The CS is bored.

Cheers!
jfc



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [governance] Why?
Datum: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:01:12 +0200
Von: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, parminder 
<parminder at itforchange.net>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
Kopie (CC): BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, 
Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>

Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this 
list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" 
and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, 
which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS 
process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with 
the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how 
to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon 
Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness 
princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you 
accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva 
Declaration from 2003?

The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have 
overtaken the discussion.

My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new 
generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to 
the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the 
limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The 
WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance 
(2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and 
private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society 
to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement 
of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of 
civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big 
shame if this would be destroyed.

Wolfgang

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

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed May 20 14:51:28 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:51:28 -0700
Subject: [governance] Reflections on making Internet governance
 democratic and participative
In-Reply-To: <20150520121933.4f1249d6@quill>
References: <20150520121933.4f1249d6@quill>
Message-ID: <555CD7B0.7000008@eff.org>

On 20/05/2015 3:19 am, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> I would be very interested in in your thoughts about this:
>
> Reflections on making Internet governance democratic and participative
> by Norbert Bollow and Richard Hill
>
> http://bollow.ch/papers/democratic_and_participative.pdf
>
>
> Abstract: Recent events have made clear that there is a conflict
> between the demand that global governance must be democratic and the
> ideology of multistakeholderism

Opening the abstract with a reference to the "ideology of
multistakeholderism" gives us the first hint about where this is going...

> which underlies the status quo of
> Internet governance. This paper examines to what extent this conflict
> is real (as opposed to being a matter of misunderstandings and/or
> intentional misrepresentations of the other side's positions),

Perpetrated in large part by the authors, which again suggests that we
might not expect a particularly impartial examination of the topic...

> and it
> reflects on how the underlying problem of making Internet governance
> democratic as well as participative can be solved.

Then once you get into the paper itself, the fever pitch of its
condemnation of multi-stakeholderism is underlined by the use of "?!" to
end the second and third paragraphs, which leads into the ad hominem
attacks.  (This paper just gets better and better!)

It then claims that the rift that JNC members have opened "can be
well-characterized as a rift between pro-multistakeholder and
pro-democracy viewpoints", which I suppose it can, if you skip over the
rest of that page which immediately contradicts itself by quoting
advocates of multi-stakeholder processes explaining how these are simply
intended to extend democratic principles at the global level.

Then we move into denialism about the implications of bandying about
words at the United Nations.  Apparently, "Whenever a word has a
well-established literal meaning, and it is commonly used in the sense of
that meaning, then it has that meaning everywhere where that literal
meaning makes sense".  I am grateful for the authors' deep insight into
diplomatic language, because I had the mistaken impression that when
Chen Xu of China spoke at the Global Conference on Cyberspace saying the
Internet governance needs to be promoted "in line with principles of
multilateralism, transparency and democracy", he meant something
different by "democracy" than what I would mean.

The next part is my favourite paragraph in the whole paper because it's
so unintentionally funny, so I'm just going to set it out without comment:

"In the present case, we think that the main reason for the resistance
to proposals for using the word “democratic” as part of normative
international documents on Internet governance is that our opponents
know that we are serious advocates for democracy, and that we will not
be satisfied when just a bit of lip service is given to democracy. We
insist that Internet governance must be made democratic in actual reality."

Then we slide into a democracy 101 lecture, which moves into the novel
claim that the only way to stop global governance processes from being
captured is to anchor them in the United Nations.  Well, that's a
testable proposition and probably the first useful part of the paper, in
that it's the first clear statement of what JNC actually believes,
rather than hand-wavy claims like that they are such serious advocates
for democracy!?

Some of the other points that follow, such as about the reliance on
English in existing processes, are also good (and valid criticisms of
some existing multi-stakeholder processes, though not of the ideals that
underlie them). In all seriousness I did also find "at the heart of the
sociodynamics of the ideology of multistakeholderism is the desire of
members of the Internet 'technical community' to be able to prevent or
at least minimize the risk of state action that interferes with the
Internet" to be a valid critique of ISOC's position, which I have also
(despite being an evil multi-stakeholderist) always criticised.  However
it's certainly not valid as a broader critique of, say, the
multi-stakeholder models that governments support.

The paper concludes with what is, in light of the previous incendiary
criticisms by JNC of civil society groups' participation in initiatives
such as NMI, a surprising concession that "Incremental improvements are
valuable
and helpful even where they do not fully achieve the desired objective
that all Internet governance
must be democratic and participative".  I can't argue with that, but it
really does shine an uncomfortable light on JNC's mode of engagement
with its civil society colleagues, which has frequently been destructive
and alienating.

-- 
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/20150520/200f5593/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/20150520/200f5593/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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Wed May 20 15:16:32 2015
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 21:16:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <476634251.24181.1432141904637.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e19>
References: <476634251.24181.1432141904637.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e19>
Message-ID: <CAGF_KH_1Au0vxn=huhvLad3xRrfpFQq9TA8ajdgn76_tG2Y9Qg@mail.gmail.com>

Jean-Louis,

There is no connection between WEF and IGF. There is a indeed a debate
regarding the NETmundial Initiative'sinvolvement with the WEF but this is a
separate issue. Actually one of the criticisms raised towards the NMI
was the lack of clarity - at least initially - regarding its connection (
or non-connection) or even competition with the IGF.

That being said, you have a valid pint regarding the scope of the IGF which
is indeed narrower than the WSIS one. The IGF cannot and should not cover
everything.

My last point was more a provocative question related to the different
status of CS in the two processes.

Best

B.



On Wednesday, May 20, 2015, <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Bertrand
>
>
>
> I partly agree with your views but the concluding question you raise lets
> me confused or,in plain french, sidéré :
>
>
>
> <in that context, maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the IGF
> 2015. Why don't we make it so? >
>
>
>
> Thus, in your opinion the WEF/IGF is given the capacity to address
> anthroplogic, cultural, social, societal, ethical and minorities' issues
> that are in the center of any "information society" ?
>
>
>
> This opinion explains much better as any long discurse the "shift" of some
> "CS" groups in the WSIS process that Wolfgang is questioning (I think he
> has forgotten some of our "lively" debates in CS plenaries when Bill (Mc
> Iver) then Sally (Burch) chaired them).
>
>
>
> regards
>
>
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Message du 19/05/15 20:28
> > De : "Bertrand de La Chapelle" <bdelachapelle at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bdelachapelle at gmail.com');>>
> > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');>" <
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');>>,
> "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gurstein at gmail.com');>>
> > Copie à : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de');>
> >
> > Objet : [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
> >
> >
> Michael,
>
> >
> I am not sure I see what you mean below by "working to undermine and
> diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"?
>
> >
> What surely could undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it will most
> likely be less open to non-state actors - and civil society in particular -
> than the WSIS itself 10 years ago. Unless things have changed, and
> according to the excellent summary by APC
> <https://www.apc.org/en/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wsis10-review>
> :
>
> >
>
> *the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General
> Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental
> negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in
> an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the
> high-level meeting of the General Assembly".*
>
>
> >
> For sure, modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders are
> supposed to be put in place, but there is a big question mark in that
> regard at the moment, isn't it?
>
> >
> In that context, maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the IGF
> 2015. Why don't we make it so?
>
> >
> Best
>
> >
> Bertrand
>
>       "*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*",
> Antoine de Saint Exupéry
> > ("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")
> >
>
> >
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gurstein at gmail.com');>> wrote:
> >
>>
>> Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
>> > that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the
>> leading
>> > "civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and
>> UKG
>> > (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the
>> WSIS
>> > +10 process.
>> >
>> > M
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');>
>> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');>]
>> On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
>> > Wolfgang"
>> > Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
>> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');>;
>> parminder; David Cake
>> > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');>;
>> BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
>> >
>> Subject: [governance] Why?
>> >
>> > Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this
>> list
>> > is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I
>> am
>> > right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once
>> played
>> > an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable
>> to
>> > look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
>> > processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough
>> consensus? Why
>> > people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
>> > century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you
>> send,
>> > be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language
>> of the
>> > CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
>> >
>> > The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
>> > overtaken the discussion.
>> >
>> > My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new
>> generation of
>> > younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
>> > real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
>> > energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
>> > multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
>> > between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
>> > (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive
>> part of
>> > the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an
>> opportunity. It
>> > is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on
>> this
>> > oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>> >
>> > Wolfgang
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 
"*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de
Saint Exupéry
("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND DE
LA CHAPELLEInternet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail
bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.netemail bdelachapelle at gmail.comtwitter
@IJurisdiction <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> | @bdelachapelle
<https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle>mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
www.internetjurisdiction.net[image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE
PROCESS]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150520/ec98b226/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  Wed May 20 15:53:39 2015
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:53:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reflections on making Internet governance
 democratic and participative
In-Reply-To: <555CD7B0.7000008@eff.org>
References: <20150520121933.4f1249d6@quill> <555CD7B0.7000008@eff.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgJ34Kv-NONcdXK2AtZN8e4ggybDGAMnaASO+V=grdvvA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> On 20/05/2015 3:19 am, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> I would be very interested in in your thoughts about this:
>
> Reflections on making Internet governance democratic and participative
> by Norbert Bollow and Richard Hill
>
> http://bollow.ch/papers/democratic_and_participative.pdf
>
>
> Abstract: Recent events have made clear that there is a conflict
> between the demand that global governance must be democratic and the
> ideology of multistakeholderism
>
>
> Opening the abstract with a reference to the "ideology of
> multistakeholderism" gives us the first hint about where this is going...
>
> which underlies the status quo of
> Internet governance. This paper examines to what extent this conflict
> is real (as opposed to being a matter of misunderstandings and/or
> intentional misrepresentations of the other side's positions),
>
>
> Perpetrated in large part by the authors, which again suggests that we might
> not expect a particularly impartial examination of the topic...


The above is exactly why I never made it past the abstract.  Kudos to
you for your bravery in reading the whole thing.




-- 
Cheers,

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

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed May 20 21:10:08 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 06:40:08 +0530
Subject: [governance] Reflections on making Internet governance
 democratic and participative
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgJ34Kv-NONcdXK2AtZN8e4ggybDGAMnaASO+V=grdvvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150520121933.4f1249d6@quill> <555CD7B0.7000008@eff.org> <CACAaNxgJ34Kv-NONcdXK2AtZN8e4ggybDGAMnaASO+V=grdvvA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <58D8340F-6CEC-4EC2-A8C0-78AC78F41E3F@hserus.net>

The abstract was poisonous enough. It clearly gets worse as you read on.

> On 21-May-2015, at 1:23 am, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The above is exactly why I never made it past the abstract.  Kudos to
> you for your bravery in reading the whole thing.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150521/203dd1ed/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  Wed May 20 21:12:07 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 06:42:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] Why?
In-Reply-To: <555CC888.1090600@gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au> <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net> <E1YuqV0-0000bl-WE@igcaucus.org> <956C43B7-D951-4674-8926-B26D2438A3A6@difference.com.au> <555CC888.1090600@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DCCC899C-00DF-4E27-A4C2-573838488523@hserus.net>

I am afraid the basic architecture of the internet is rather beyond both of you gentlemen.  

Perhaps this deep understanding is of “the internet” in some alternate reality, but most definitely not the internet that you, he and I are currently connected to, in order to send email to this caucus.

> On 20-May-2015, at 11:16 pm, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> For me, this text from JFC is a real special text. JFC have a deep insight in the basic architecture of the internet. And also in the theatrical superstructure, what we give the name "Internet Governance".

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150521/510e49f3/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 May 21 02:42:21 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 08:42:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] Public interest and multi-stakeholder
 participation, was Re: [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 ..
In-Reply-To: <240F45B0-9EAC-442A-B698-A09C0239C59B@gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
	<5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
	<55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
	<D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net>
	<D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org>
	<307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20>
	<555C9D13.7030803@apc.org>
	<240F45B0-9EAC-442A-B698-A09C0239C59B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150521084221.745ee49d@quill>

On Wed, 20 May 2015 13:20:43 -0400
George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> In some quarters, multi-stakeholderism has almost become a religion,
> to be accepted on faith, with doubters shunned and excluded.  IMO
> this is counterproductive both to understanding the possibilities of
> multi-stakeholderism and to employing when it is the right model to
> use.

Well-said. I wholeheartedly agree.

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 nashton at consensus.pro  Thu May 21 02:58:14 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 02:58:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] Public interest and multi-stakeholder
 participation, was Re: [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 ..
In-Reply-To: <20150521084221.745ee49d@quill>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net> <D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org> <307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> <555C9D13.7030803@apc.org> <240F45B0-9EAC-442A-B698-A09C0239C59B@gmail.com> <20150521084221.745ee49d@quill>
Message-ID: <DF8215BC-71B9-4083-BD3E-BA3352B854D2@consensus.pro>

May I make a suggestion?

Perhaps a dedicated list where those interested in the definitions of these key terms which have caused so much strife could be created, and those interested in that discussion could pursue it there; this list could refer all such discussions to the ‘other place’.

That would give everyone what they want, it seems to me.

> On 21 May 2015, at 02:42, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 May 2015 13:20:43 -0400
> George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In some quarters, multi-stakeholderism has almost become a religion,
>> to be accepted on faith, with doubters shunned and excluded.  IMO
>> this is counterproductive both to understanding the possibilities of
>> multi-stakeholderism and to employing when it is the right model to
>> use.
> 
> Well-said. I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> 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 --------------
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/20150521/5fd1659b/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  Thu May 21 04:59:49 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:59:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Discourse on doubts and concerns about
 multistakeholderism (was Re: Public interest and multi-stakeholder...)
In-Reply-To: <DF8215BC-71B9-4083-BD3E-BA3352B854D2@consensus.pro>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
	<5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
	<55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
	<D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net>
	<D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org>
	<307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20>
	<555C9D13.7030803@apc.org>
	<240F45B0-9EAC-442A-B698-A09C0239C59B@gmail.com>
	<20150521084221.745ee49d@quill>
	<DF8215BC-71B9-4083-BD3E-BA3352B854D2@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <20150521105949.0905601b@quill>

On Thu, 21 May 2015 02:58:14 -0400
Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> May I make a suggestion?
> 
> Perhaps a dedicated list where those interested in the definitions of
> these key terms which have caused so much strife could be created,
> and those interested in that discussion could pursue it there; this
> list could refer all such discussions to the ‘other place’.
> 
> That would give everyone what they want, it seems to me.

The real problem is not in disagreements about definitions, nor in the
fact that wordsmithing good definitions is difficult.

In my view, the key for really improving the situation would be to
address the sociodynamics which George Sadowsky has referred to by
stating that "in some quarters", doubters of multistakeholderism are
"shunned and excluded". The other side of this coin is that those of us
who are making the experience of getting shunned and excluded in some
quarters, are of course objecting to that process of exclusion, and
looking for opportunities to express our concerns.

IGC's current structures are IMO quite clearly inadequate to this
situation, in the sense that it is IMO not realistic to expect the
needed substantive discourse to take place in a constructive manner
here on this list.

Neither am I aware of any other suitable, currently existing venues for
this.

IMO the only way to really advance beyond unproductive and repetitive
patterns of interactions between proponents and critics of
multistakeholderism is for someone to set up a venue of discourse with
the specific goal of facilitating a constructive discourse on the main
points of disagreement between these two viewpoints.

The objectives of such a discourse should IMO be to figure out:

1. whether there are any fundamental points of disagreement on which a
broadly acceptable consensus is impossible to reach, and if so,
precisely understand what precisely the disagreements and respective
opinions and interests are

2. what are broadly acceptable principles, which will, if/when
they are adopted, solve those aspects on which there is no fundamental
disagreement

Greetings,
Norbert


> > On 21 May 2015, at 02:42, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 20 May 2015 13:20:43 -0400
> > George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In some quarters, multi-stakeholderism has almost become a
> >> religion, to be accepted on faith, with doubters shunned and
> >> excluded.  IMO this is counterproductive both to understanding the
> >> possibilities of multi-stakeholderism and to employing when it is
> >> the right model to use.
> > 
> > Well-said. I wholeheartedly agree.
> > 
> > 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 suresh at hserus.net  Thu May 21 05:34:32 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 15:04:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] Discourse on doubts and concerns about
 multistakeholderism (was Re: Public interest and multi-stakeholder...)
In-Reply-To: <20150521105949.0905601b@quill>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net> <D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org> <307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> <555C9D13.7030803@apc.org> <240F45B0-9EAC-442A-B698-A09C0239C59B@gmail.com> <20150521084221.745ee49d@quill> <DF8215BC-71B9-4083-BD3E-BA3352B854D2@consensus.pro> <20150521105949.0905601b@quill>
Message-ID: <E851FF0F-80A9-4133-89CC-B10EA21A504B@hserus.net>

An additional problem would be for one of the sides in this debate to treat this is a no holds barred political battle in which opponents are routinely vilified and innuendo (including the ?! punctuation that Jeremy cited) being seen as an accepted practice.

--srs

> On 21-May-2015, at 2:29 pm, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> The real problem is not in disagreements about definitions, nor in the
> fact that wordsmithing good definitions is difficult.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu May 21 08:42:24 2015
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 14:42:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] Public interest and multi-stakeholder
 participation, was Re: [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 ..
In-Reply-To: <240F45B0-9EAC-442A-B698-A09C0239C59B@gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net> <D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org> <307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> <555C9D13.7030803@apc.org> <240F45B0-9EAC-442A-B698-A09C0239C59B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A742DAF9-8F2E-4C25-B03E-1E5E13A410BD@gmail.com>

Hi

In light of this discussion, I thought I’d bring to peoples' attention this workshop to be held at the IGF meeting in Brazil in November:

No. 52 The Global “Public Interest” in Critical Internet Resources
http://intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/52 <http://intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/52>

Would be happy to see folks and continue the conversation there.

Best

Bill

> On May 20, 2015, at 7:20 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This is one of the best expositions of the multi-stakeholder model and the importance of the orientation toward the global public interest that I have ever seen.  Thank you, Anriette.
> 
> In some quarters, multi-stakeholderism has almost become a religion, to be accepted on faith, with doubters shunned and excluded.  IMO this is counterproductive both to understanding the possibilities of multi-stakeholderism and to employing when it is the right model to use.   As Annette implies, there are all sorts of implementations of multi-stakeholderism, some where people come together on an equal footing, some not. Multi-stakeholder organizations are a means for achieving a goal, and it's the nature of the goal that affects who are to be considered the stakeholders and how they should be included in the multi-stakeholder process.  The goal is the important element, and determines the means. 
> 
> I like Annette's discussion of the public interest, and how it opens a debate.  
> 
> Multi-stakehoder processes exist because there are competing interests at play.  The hope is that this form of organization will be effective in producing a least unacceptable output across the set of stakeholders.  Different stakeholders will naturally claim that their point of view is the best, and Annette's requirement that they define their view of the public interest and then state why their approach best serves it.  Shedding this kind of light on a decision is likely to produce one of the better outcomes possible.
> 
> Thank you again, Annette.
> 
> George
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
> 
> 
> On May 20, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Jean-Louis
>> 
>> I don't personally use the 'equal footing' term. Configuration of
>> participation depends on the issue being discussed and accountability
>> involved. The term equal footing creates unnecessary confusion and can
>> be interpreted as saying that government and public sector actors don't
>> have an important role or specific responsibilities. It can also be abused.
>> 
>> If one is developing a national action plan on local content creation
>> having all different stakeholders involved 'equally' would be good, but
>> I would want to see particularly strong participation of people from
>> libraries, arts and culture and education ministries, content and
>> creative industries and so on. I would like to see large entertainment
>> companies, but also small independent producers and film makers, writers
>> and artists and people from cultural minorities.
>> 
>> I would be concerned if government or big business had a louder voice in
>> this discussion than other stakeholders, as that might end up silencing
>> some voices, and reducing diversity of views. But that does not mean
>> that we don't need to hear from government, or from big business.
>> Although I would hope they use the opportunity to listen, not just speak.
>> 
>> If it is a decision about how to tax global internet companies they
>> should have a voice in the pre-policy consultation process, but they
>> should not be making the decision. That is a decision that needs to be
>> made - transparently - by governments and intergovernmental
>> institutions. I would like civil society to be involved in this and I
>> would like public-interest economists to give input, and for the media
>> to be present so that we have more transparency. And I would like the
>> tax collection agencies to speak too.... as they know whether compliance
>> is likely to take place or not.
>> 
>> On public interest.. for me the power of this concept is that it opens a
>> debate. It forces a discussion on what the broadest possible public
>> interest is. Just having a room full of different stakeholders will
>> bring you diversity, but they might just all talk about what it is
>> matters most to them as interest or stakeholder groups. So governments
>> might talk about national security, operators about intermediary
>> liability, civil society about freedom of expression...
>> 
>> ...but if the obligation of the discussion is to serve the broadest
>> possible public interest they must all make the case of WHY the position
>> they are advocating for will serve that interest, and state how they
>> understand the public interest.
>> 
>> And one should not make assumptions about who will argue for what. E.g
>> in some countries at present, small private sector content producers are
>> much more concerned with having a publicly funded public broadcaster
>> than government is. To assume that governments are in all cases the most
>> reliable custodians of the 'public interest' is wishful thinking.
>> 
>> Perhaps I am being naive, but in my view having a public-interest
>> orientation makes a big difference. And that is why I was so pleased
>> when the NETmundial statement said that internet governance should be in
>> the public interest.
>> 
>> It defines a common purpose, and a common measure - even if there will
>> still be different views of what serves the public interest best.
>> 
>> I often say to telecom regulators - am actually in an event with African
>> regulators this minute - that their role is not primarily to balance
>> interests among operators - their role is to protect and promote the
>> interest of users/consumers/the public.
>> 
>> Jean-Louis, I will not be in Geneva, but from APC there will be Shawna
>> Finnegan from APC staff for part of it, and Aida Mahmutovic who is on
>> APC's member council, representing our member in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
>> 
>> Warm greetings
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150521/71aa6542/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 May 21 08:50:17 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:20:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>



On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:57 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I am not sure I see what you mean below by "working to undermine and
> diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"? 
>
> What surely could undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it will most
> likely be less open to non-state actors - and civil society in
> particular - than the WSIS itself 10 years ago. Unless things have
> changed, and according to the excellent summary by APC
> <https://www.apc.org/en/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wsis10-review>: 
>
>     /the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the
>     General Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an
>     intergovernmental negotiation process, which will include
>     preparatory meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed
>     outcome document, for adoption at the high-level meeting of the
>     General Assembly"./
>

/Bertrand

What Michael says above relates to how we reached the state of affair
described in the cited section/ from APC's summary.

I am sure you know how we reached the situation whereby

"

    /the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the
    General Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an
    intergovernmental negotiation process, which will include
    preparatory meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed
    outcome document, for adoption at the high-level meeting of the
    General Assembly".  "

    /

/Over many months last year, and the year before, G 77 sought a full
fledged WSIS plus 10 summit on the same style as the original WSIS, the
extended preparatory meetings and all.... Developed countries, under the
customary US leadership, simply refused. Some m/ajor NGOs that otherwise
follow this process closely were either silent or actually supporting
the developed country position in this stand off, and to that extent
opposing the position of a full fledged WSIS summit, original WSIS style
(which would have then taken place in Geneva, with multistakeholder
participation at least at the same level as was in the original WSIS).
When this was happening, I raised the issue a few times on these list
but got no response. It is really strange in the circumstances to now
rue that this has happened.

It is a fact that the more authoritarian countries among the G 77 also
preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi stakeholder
participation than what would have happened in Geneva, even though they
wanted it to be summit level meeting. /*However, G 77 as a group was
ready to do it fully original WSIS style*/, with the leadership for this
position taken by the more democratic developing countries. However,
this position found no support from civil society and tech groups (ISOC)
who otherwise were closely following the process, and there were in fact
positions articulated that expressed some kinds of 'fear' about a
possible full-fledged summit, with these positions largely aligning with
developed country positions.

That is what brought us were we are. Lets not escape the responsibility.

Further, as I said in my earlier email, the CEO of ICANN - an
organisation on whose board both you and Wolfgang sit - openly touted
Net Mundial Initiative as something needed to stop governments from
doing what they would in default (of NMI)  do through the WSIS and its
preparatory process. With this kind of sentiment, publicly expressed, it
is clear what ICANN and others of the dominant IG cohort think of the
WSIS process....

Quoting Fadi  on why Net Mundial is needed - 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2

"We need to make sure that next June (referring to the start of WSIS
prep process) we don't have delegation after delegation going to UNGA
[the United Nations General Assembly] saying there are no solutions to
these issues.

And then now to express regret about the health of the WSIS process !?

>
> For sure, modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders
> are supposed to be put in place, but there is a big question mark in
> that regard at the moment, isn't it?
>
> In that context, maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the
> IGF 2015. Why don't we make it so?

Yes, that kind of sentiment is and was precisely the problem which led
to where we stand today. But then lets not try to have our cake and eat
it too ...

parminder
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
> "/Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes/", Antoine
> de Saint Exupéry
> ("/There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans/")
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly
>     odd in
>     that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the
>     leading
>     "civil society" organizations have been working alongside their
>     USG and UKG
>     (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of
>     the WSIS
>     +10 process.
>
>     M
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] On Behalf Of
>     "Kleinwächter,
>     Wolfgang"
>     Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
>     To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder; David Cake
>     Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; BestBitsList;
>     Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
>     Subject: [governance] Why?
>
>     Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on
>     this list
>     is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen"
>     and "I am
>     right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which
>     once played
>     an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is
>     unable to
>     look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming
>     WSIS 10+
>     processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough
>     consensus? Why
>     people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a
>     quarter of a
>     century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what
>     you send,
>     be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the
>     language of the
>     CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
>
>     The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
>     overtaken the discussion.
>
>     My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new
>     generation of
>     younger civil society people who feel more committed to the
>     substance of
>     real civil society activities and do not waste the limited
>     resources and
>     energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
>     multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a
>     compromise
>     between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector
>     leadership
>     (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an
>     inclusive part of
>     the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an
>     opportunity. It
>     is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to
>     build on this
>     oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>
>     Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150521/888e0cc9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu May 21 09:38:44 2015
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 13:38:44 +0000
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?FW=3A_=5BIP=5D_Chehad=E9_Announces_In?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?tention_to_End_His_Tenure_as_ICANN_President_=26_CEO_in_Ma?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?rch_2016_-_ICANN?=
In-Reply-To: <095253BE-9B09-41C2-BDD4-FA7219A8AD77@gmail.com>
References: <095253BE-9B09-41C2-BDD4-FA7219A8AD77@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bb947bd9b4964d94ae7cc551b9674005@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Maybe of interest
________________________________________
From: David Farber <farber at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:31 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Chehadé Announces Intention to End His Tenure as ICANN President & CEO in March 2016 - ICANN

> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-21-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-21-en>

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced that President and CEO Fadi Chehadé has informed the Board he will be concluding his tenure in March 2016 to move into a new career in the private sector (outside the Domain Name Industry).

At the request of the Board, Chehadé will be available to work closely with ICANN after March 2016 to support the transition to a new leader, as well as to advise the Board on any issue they require including the implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition from the US Government to ICANN and the technical operating community.

"I want to thank Fadi for his strong commitment," said Dr. Stephen Crocker, Chair of the Board of Directors. I am very confident that with Fadi's continued leadership and ICANN's very experienced management team who have the breadth to ensure that ICANN continues to manage its key responsibilities effectively, that the organization's work will proceed smoothly."

"I am deeply committed to working with the Board, our staff, and our community to continue ICANN's mission as we still have much to accomplish," said Chehadé. "During the remaining 10 months of my tenure, it's business-as-usual. My priority remains to continue strengthening ICANN's operations and services to the global community."


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 506 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail.asc
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150521/24da2149/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150521/24da2149/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Thu May 21 11:40:48 2015
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 17:40:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder,

I can agree with several of the points you make and your description of the
sequence of events is quite accurate. Some comments however and a
question/proposal in the end that is the most important in my view.

*Comments*

I personally would not have been opposed to a full-fledged WSIS review
(including potentially a summit level), provided however that it would have
implemented additional improvement to the participation scheme achieved ten
years ago.

Actually, the preparatory meetings organized by Unesco in 2013 and ITU in
2014 were interesting experiments in terms of more participatory processes
and drafting. But it did not seem to have impacted the minds of the New
York representatives.

As you rightly point out, in the discussions last year at the UNGA, the
positions among governments were roughly:
- on the one hand those who put the emphasis on multi-stakeholder
participation and traditionally did not want a heads of state type of event
nor a long preparatory process (for both good and bad reasons), who also
favored a meeting in Geneva
- on the other hand, as you said, "the more authoritarian countries among
the G 77 also preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi
stakeholder participation than what would have happened in Geneva, [and]
wanted it to be summit level meeting"

I have not seen the position of the G77 that you mention and confess I did
not follow this very closely. But as could be expected in pure
intergovernmental discussions (as is the case in the UNGA) in the absence
of a strong desire by all to reach an agreement, this divergence of views
was only overcome with the sort of half-baked solution that we are now
seeing (bits and pieces of each position).

I do agree that it deprives everyone of an opportunity to have a serious
review and that was the initial gist of my post to Michael: I do not expect
much from a mere resolution adopted in a two-day meeting in New York with
little if any involvement of non-governmental actors in the preparation. At
best it will reconduct the IGF with little if any improvements.

Having participated for four years in the CSTD exercise every year, I can
testify that none of the resolutions that we so painstakingly drafted in
late night sessions contained anything more than copy and paste of the
favorite sections of the various WSIS documents. I did not expect the
intergovernmental discussions in New York about the WSIS+10 to produce
anything significant - and I unfortunately was right.

But isn't it unfair to put the blame on civil society (or part of it) for
this outcome, as you seem to imply? After all, it did not have a say in the
process. I suppose in addition that it was itself split on the right thing
to do, which would have made it hard to launch a structured and strong
campaign.

It is a bit the same as the debate on who has weakened the IGF? Is it the
western countries that strongly refused to move towards recommendations (in
part true - although they provided 100% of its funding)? Is it the more
radical developing countries governments who somehow progressively stopped
coming as a way to reduce its legitimacy (also true). Or is it the
throttling by UN DESA which made it hard to receive funds, did not replace
the Chair and maintained just a skeleton of a secretariat that prevented
anything more than the organization of the annual even to be done (very
much so).

In the case of the WSIS+10, the governments in the UNGA - not civil society
- are the ones to blame for being unable to agree on anything coherent
regarding the mere format to discuss these very important issues. And this
does not bode well for any likelihood of progress on substance, hence the
legitimate caution by many regarding the role that the UN can play in that
regard. An unfortunate self-reinforcing feedback loop.

We'll see what happens.

*Question/proposal*

*To end on a positive and more forward-looking note, what would be YOUR
hopes for the WSIS+10 Review meeting and resolution? What do you think it
can achieve? What could be civil society contribution to the shaping of the
agenda and document? Suggestions welcome, as it might be a useful thread on
this list - provided we focus on what unites rather than what divides.*

Best

Bertrand

*PS*: As a matter of clarification, I do not sit on the ICANN Board since
the end of 2013 (the Buenos Aires meeting) and therefore have no
association with the positions that it has taken since then on the issues
at stake here.

"*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de
Saint Exupéry
("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND DE
LA CHAPELLEInternet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail
bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.netemail bdelachapelle at gmail.comtwitter
@IJurisdiction <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> | @bdelachapelle
<https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle>mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
www.internetjurisdiction.net[image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE
PROCESS]

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:57 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
>  I am not sure I see what you mean below by "working to undermine and
> diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"?
>
>  What surely could undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it will most
> likely be less open to non-state actors - and civil society in particular -
> than the WSIS itself 10 years ago. Unless things have changed, and
> according to the excellent summary by APC
> <https://www.apc.org/en/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wsis10-review>
> :
>
>  *the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General
> Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental
> negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in
> an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the
> high-level meeting of the General Assembly".*
>
>
>
>
> *Bertrand What Michael says above relates to how we reached the state of
> affair described in the cited section* from APC's summary.
>
> I am sure you know how we reached the situation whereby
>
> "
>
>
>
> *the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General
> Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental
> negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in
> an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the
> high-level meeting of the General Assembly".  " *
>
> *Over many months last year, and the year before, G 77 sought a full
> fledged WSIS plus 10 summit on the same style as the original WSIS, the
> extended preparatory meetings and all.... Developed countries, under the
> customary US leadership, simply refused. Some m*ajor NGOs that otherwise
> follow this process closely were either silent or actually supporting the
> developed country position in this stand off, and to that extent opposing
> the position of a full fledged WSIS summit, original WSIS style (which
> would have then taken place in Geneva, with multistakeholder participation
> at least at the same level as was in the original WSIS). When this was
> happening, I raised the issue a few times on these list but got no
> response. It is really strange in the circumstances to now rue that this
> has happened.
>
> It is a fact that the more authoritarian countries among the G 77 also
> preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi stakeholder
> participation than what would have happened in Geneva, even though they
> wanted it to be summit level meeting. *However, G 77 as a group was ready
> to do it fully original WSIS style*, with the leadership for this
> position taken by the more democratic developing countries. However, this
> position found no support from civil society and tech groups (ISOC) who
> otherwise were closely following the process, and there were in fact
> positions articulated that expressed some kinds of 'fear' about a possible
> full-fledged summit, with these positions largely aligning with developed
> country positions.
>
> That is what brought us were we are. Lets not escape the responsibility.
>
> Further, as I said in my earlier email, the CEO of ICANN - an organisation
> on whose board both you and Wolfgang sit - openly touted Net Mundial
> Initiative as something needed to stop governments from doing what they
> would in default (of NMI)  do through the WSIS and its preparatory process.
> With this kind of sentiment, publicly expressed, it is clear what ICANN and
> others of the dominant IG cohort think of the WSIS process....
>
> Quoting Fadi  on why Net Mundial is needed -
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2
>
> "We need to make sure that next June (referring to the start of WSIS prep
> process) we don't have delegation after delegation going to UNGA [the
> United Nations General Assembly] saying there are no solutions to these
> issues.
>
> And then now to express regret about the health of the WSIS process !?
>
>
>  For sure, modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders are
> supposed to be put in place, but there is a big question mark in that
> regard at the moment, isn't it?
>
>  In that context, maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the IGF
> 2015. Why don't we make it so?
>
>
> Yes, that kind of sentiment is and was precisely the problem which led to
> where we stand today. But then lets not try to have our cake and eat it
> too ...
>
> parminder
>
>
>  Best
>
>  Bertrand
>
>
>   "*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de
> Saint Exupéry
> ("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
>> that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the leading
>> "civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and
>> UKG
>> (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS
>> +10 process.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of
>> "Kleinwächter,
>> Wolfgang"
>> Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition.
>> Org
>>  Subject: [governance] Why?
>>
>> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this
>> list
>> is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am
>> right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once
>> played
>> an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to
>> look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
>> processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus?
>> Why
>> people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
>> century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send,
>> be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of
>> the
>> CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
>>
>> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
>> overtaken the discussion.
>>
>> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation
>> of
>> younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
>> real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
>> energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
>> multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
>> between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
>> (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part
>> of
>> the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity.
>> It
>> is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on
>> this
>> oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150521/f2531f70/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Thu May 21 12:19:44 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:19:44 +0200
Subject: [governance] [Deadline Approaching: 30 May 2015] 11th International
 Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT'15)
Message-ID: <011101d093e1$f2af16f0$d80d44d0$@unimi.it>

Dear Colleagues,

 

Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP.

 

Please feel free to distribute the IIT'15 CFP to your colleagues, students
and networks.

 

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

 

2015 11th International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology
(IIT'15)

Special Theme: Smart Living Cities, Big Data and Sustainable Development 

November 01-03, 2015, Dubai, UAE

http://www.it-innovations.ae/ 

 

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

 

BEST PAPER AWARDS

 

Two best papers of the conference will be selected by the program committee.
One will be awarded the "Best Research Paper Award" and another one will be
awarded the "Best Application Paper Award" (for application-oriented
submissions). 

 

IMPORTANT DATES

 

Papers and Student Posters Submission              30 May 2015

Submission of Tutorials                                               30 May
2015

Notification for Papers and Student Posters      15 July 2015

Notification for Tutorials                                             15
July 2015

Final Camera-Ready                                                      01
September 2015

 

PUBLICATION

 

IIT'15 is technically sponsored by IEEE Computer Society. Proceedings will
be published by IEEE Computer Society Conference Publication Services, and
will be submitted for publication in Computer Society Digital Library
indexed in IEEE Xplore digital library, and all other global indices.
Extended papers will be published in a Springer Book, indexed in Springer
global indices, one of the largest databases in the world and Scopus
including citations.

 

Selected papers from IIT'15 will be invited for possible publications in
special issues of journals. 

 

SCOPE

 

The International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology 2015
(IIT'15) is a forum that addresses the latest ideas in information
technology (IT). The theme of IIT'15 is Smart Cities and all of the software
and hardware technologies that are required to provide better living
conditions in the cities of tomorrow. This theme will be reflected by a
number of tracks which focus on different aspects of related technologies
such as Big Data, cloud computing, collaborative platforms, communication
infrastructures, smart health, smart learning, social participation,
sustainable development and energy management. All of those themes will be
brought together by unifying invited high quality keynotes and panels.  

 

CONFERENCE TRACKS/THEMES

 

Topics of interest include but not limited to the following major
tracks/themes. Research papers are invited but not limited to the following
areas:

 

Track A: Innovations in Information and Communication Infrastructures

- Advanced Network Technologies, Heterogeneous networks, and Real Time
Networks

- Quality of Services

- Next Generation of Mobile Networks

- Ad-Hoc and Sensor Networks, Wireless Networks

- Distributed Systems, Grid Computing

- Smart Grid

- Mobility Management and Mobile computing

- Information and Cyber Security for Smart Living Spaces

 

Track B: Internet of Things (IoT)

- ICT Architecture for IoT

- System design, Modeling and Simulation

- Grid Computing , and Cloud Computing

- Real-Time Systems for IoT, Autonomic Systems

- Security, Privacy, Trust and Reliability

- Software Design and Development of IoT-Based Applications

- Intelligent Data Processing

- Smart Appliances & Wearable Computing Devices

 

Track C: Smart Collaborative Platforms and Logistics

- Agile Information Systems

- Design, Modeling and Simulation of Collaborative Applications

- Practice and Experiences of Collaborative Applications

- Risk Management, Smart Business

- Middleware Support for Collaboration

- Real-Time Information Sharing and Interaction

- AI and Decision-Support Systems

 

Track D: Big Data and Smart Applications

- Big Data Analytics and Algorithms

- High Performance Computing and Real-Time of Big Data Processing

- Big Data Storage and Distribution

- Data Mining

- Grid Computing and Cloud Computing

- Middleware for Smart Applications

- e-Health, Smart Learning, Intelligent Processing and Intelligent
Applications

 

Track E: Cyber-Physical Energy Systems

- Theory, Tools and Applications

- System Design, Modeling and Simulation

- Testbeds and Experiences

- Algorithms for Energy Efficiency

- Middleware

- Design and Development of Protocols for Sustainable energy

- Design and Development of Secure and Resilient Systems

 

SUBMISSIONS

 

IIT'15 seeks original manuscripts (of up to 6 pages maximum in IEEE
two-column format) describing research in all aspects of IT that contribute
to the conference themes. Papers submitted to the conference should present
original work that has not been previously published or is currently under
review by other conferences or journals.  All papers will be peer reviewed,
and authors of accepted papers are expected to present their work at the
conference. Submissions of tutorial, special session, and workshop proposals
are also welcome. The submission guidelines are available at

http://www.it-innovations.ae/iit2015/Authors.html. 

Paper submission should be done through http://www.edas.info  

 

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

 

Chair Professor Christian Wagner

Associate Provost for Quality Assurance

City University, Hong kong

 

Dr. Babu Narayanan

Senior Principal Scientist GE Global Research

 

Dr. Michael P. Perrone

Program Director, DCS Client Partnerships IBM T. J. Watson Research Center,
NY USA

 

Professor & Canberra Fellow & IEEE Fellow Elizabeth Chang

IFIP Web Semantics Group chair, University of New South Wales
UNSW at Australian Defense Force Academy, Australia 

 

We look forward to welcoming you in Dubai at IIT'15 in November 2015.

 

On behalf of the IIT'15 Organizing Committee

 

 

 


****************
Per destinare il 5x1000 all'Universita' degli Studi di Milano: indicare nella dichiarazione dei redditi il codice fiscale 80012650158.

http://www.unimi.it/13084.htm?utm_source=firmaMail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=linkFirmaEmail&utm_campaign=5xmille

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150521/ca8a70e8/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  Thu May 21 14:27:14 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 14:27:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Why? Lessons from the Internet
 Mercantile Protocol listserv and yet another IGC Failure to Communicate
In-Reply-To: <2f2fbb80f7544f39bdb71fe0aac16dfb@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
	<5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
	<55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
	<5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au>
	<555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EBD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<2f2fbb80f7544f39bdb71fe0aac16dfb@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <21854.9090.665962.264791@world.std.com>


FWIW, when I put the general public on the internet for the first time
in 1989 I did receive a fair amount of hate mail. Illegal sale of
government property, that sort of thing. None of it organized,
fortunately.

Some of it came through members of a similar list to IMP, com-priv
(Commercialization and Privatization of the Internet), which some of
you may remember.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*

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

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

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

From bzs at world.std.com  Thu May 21 16:07:42 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 16:07:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] Public interest and multi-stakeholder
 participation, was Re: [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 ..
In-Reply-To: <DF8215BC-71B9-4083-BD3E-BA3352B854D2@consensus.pro>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
	<5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
	<55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
	<D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net>
	<D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org>
	<307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20>
	<555C9D13.7030803@apc.org>
	<240F45B0-9EAC-442A-B698-A09C0239C59B@gmail.com>
	<20150521084221.745ee49d@quill>
	<DF8215BC-71B9-4083-BD3E-BA3352B854D2@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <21854.15118.995433.861108@world.std.com>


On May 21, 2015 at 02:58 nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) wrote:
 > 
 > --Apple-Mail=_64BEFB38-17C8-46C6-BF36-96E3813553EA
 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 > Content-Type: text/plain;
 > 	charset=utf-8
 > 
 > May I make a suggestion?
 > 
 > Perhaps a dedicated list where those interested in the definitions of these=
 >  key terms which have caused so much strife could be created, and those int=
 > erested in that discussion could pursue it there; this list could refer all=
 >  such discussions to the =E2=80=98other place=E2=80=99.
 > 
 > That would give everyone what they want, it seems to me.

With all due respect: That idea, though reasonable on the surface,
never or very rarely works unless the topics are largely disjoint.

How can one expect people interested in the goals and who believe
terms are ill-defined or undefined to sit still while castles are
being built in the air upon those terms? How does siphoning off
discussion to a different venue help that? I think it's a real
problem.

The easiest and most effective way to squelch a discussion of
definitions of terms is to define them!

Preferably in some substantive way beyond "multistakeholderism (e.g.)
is the belief in broad participation in decision making and processes"
which I daresay has been repeated about a dozen times just in the past
few days and, to me, is not a definition at all, it's just a vague
hand wave.

P.S. We are now sinking into meta-discussion which IMHO is worse than
actual fear of loss of focus because it really takes no insight into
any topic whatsoever to simply debate whether a topic is appropriate.

AND: This note now opens a meta-meta-discussion, shall we or shall we
not engage in meta-discussion?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*

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

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu May 21 19:15:45 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 01:15:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net> <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <226B56A8-A36C-4FDE-A2A6-9EE541BF2028@consensus.pro>

Just on this point below, I actually have more hope, I think it is possible to see an agreement that the action lines going forward should be implemented in order to facilitate success in the SDGs, with perhaps some indication of which elements of the action lines map to which SDGs.

That would be, to me, a very positive step forward. Others may disagree. And on this list, probably in a very large variety of strongly held ways ;)

On 21 May 2015, at 17:40, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not expect much from a mere resolution adopted in a two-day meeting in New York with little if any involvement of non-governmental actors in the preparation. At best it will reconduct the IGF with little if any improvements.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150522/22ffb423/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/20150522/22ffb423/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  Fri May 22 00:07:28 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 00:07:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress
 on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
In-Reply-To: <555AE192.7020101@itforchange.net>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
	<5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
	<55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
	<D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<21850.8747.820474.814826@world.std.com>
	<555AE192.7020101@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <21854.43904.328205.594992@world.std.com>


From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>On Monday 18 May 2015 11:02 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>> You can't have an operational definition of "multistakeholderism"
>> without some process to define it such as enfranchisement in a
>> governance body.
>>
>> One could argue that ICANN has done that via its by-laws. The board of
>> directors recognizes certain groups as groups of enfranchised
>> stakeholders for each group's stated purpose: Address Supporting
>> Organization (ASO), Country-Code Names Supporting Organization
>> (CCNSO), Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Advisory
>> Committees (AC, such as GAC, SSAC, RSSAC, ALAC), and then other,
>> board, and temporary committees.
>
>Barry, by your account nothing can be more top down than
>multistakeholderism, as we know it, which is exactly the opposite of
>what is sold as its primary value, being bottom up. And this precisely
>sums up what is wrong with multistakeholderism as a new post-democratic
>political device or institution... parminder

Well, not that simple since (most) directors are chosen by the
stakeholder groups. The Nominating Committee* is composed of several
non-voting liaisons plus voting delegates from the GNSO, specifically
one from the Registries Stakeholder Group, one from the Registry SG,
two from the business constituency, and so on (ccNSO, etc), all
detailed in Article VII of the ICANN by-laws.

  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#VII

So the composite groups (GNSO and SGs, etc) get to choose their
masters. Plus some directors are chosen by supporting organizations
such as the ASO, IETF, etc by their own process.

I suppose a further analysis would be how those individuals who end up
on the Nominating Committee are selected, etc.

* A bit of a misnomer, they don't nominate really in the sense that
some other process actually chooses directors, the Nominating
Committee selects directors.

-- 
        -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 nb at bollow.ch  Fri May 22 02:00:35 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:00:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] On half-baked non-solutions (was Re: On WSIS+10)
In-Reply-To: <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>
	<CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150522080035.63871230@quill>

On Thu, 21 May 2015 17:40:48 +0200
Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:

> But as could be expected in pure
> intergovernmental discussions (as is the case in the UNGA) in the
> absence of a strong desire by all to reach an agreement, this
> divergence of views was only overcome with the sort of half-baked
> solution that we are now seeing (bits and pieces of each position).

I would add that this phenomenon is not at all limited to "pure
intergovernmental discussions":

In the absence of a strong and broad desire by most of the participants
in any kind of political process to reach a consensus, only half-baked
non-solutions will be arrived at, and the situation continues that some
of the problems which need solving are not in any way addressed
effectively.

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 anriette at apc.org  Fri May 22 03:43:22 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 09:43:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Public interest and multi-stakeholder
 participation, was Re: Call for Participation: Global Congress ..
In-Reply-To: <555E443A.9060409@softwarefreedom.org>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net> <D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org> <307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> <555C9D13.7030803@apc.org> <240F45B0-9EAC-442A-B698-A09C0239C59B@gmail.com> <A742DAF9-8F2E-4C25-B03E-1E5E13A410BD@gmail.com> <555E443A.9060409@softwarefreedom.org>
Message-ID: <555EDE1A.70104@apc.org>

Dear Mishi

This is very helpful. Would be good if people can share definitions from
their own jurisdictions.

Anriette


On 21/05/2015 22:46, Mishi Choudhary wrote:
> Thanks Bill! This will be useful. Different jurisdictions talk about the
> term differently.
> 
> In Black's Law Dictionary  "public interest" is defined as follows:
> 
> Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which
> their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean
> anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters
> in question. Interest shared by national government
> 
> 
> 
> I can remember long discussions about this term during an important
> education related case in India on which I worked at the turn of this
> century. Herein below, I quote:
> 
> 
> "Public interest means those interest which concern the public at large.
> Matter of public interest 'does not mean that which is interesting as
> gratifying curiosity or love of information or amusement; but that in
> which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some
> interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected' (per
> Campbell, CJ., R. v. Bedfordshire, 4E and B, 541, 542).
> 
> 
> The expression 'public interest' is not capable of
> precise definition and has not a rigid meaning and is elastic and takes
> its colours from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying
> with the time and state for society and its needs. Thus what is 'public
> interest' today may not be so considered a decade later.
> 
> 
> On 05/21/2015 08:42 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> In light of this discussion, I thought I’d bring to peoples' attention this workshop to be held at the IGF meeting in Brazil in November:
>>
>> No. 52 The Global “Public Interest” in Critical Internet Resources
>> http://intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/52 <http://intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/52>
>>
>> Would be happy to see folks and continue the conversation there.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>> On May 20, 2015, at 7:20 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is one of the best expositions of the multi-stakeholder model and the importance of the orientation toward the global public interest that I have ever seen.  Thank you, Anriette.
>>>
>>> In some quarters, multi-stakeholderism has almost become a religion, to be accepted on faith, with doubters shunned and excluded.  IMO this is counterproductive both to understanding the possibilities of multi-stakeholderism and to employing when it is the right model to use.   As Annette implies, there are all sorts of implementations of multi-stakeholderism, some where people come together on an equal footing, some not. Multi-stakeholder organizations are a means for achieving a goal, and it's the nature of the goal that affects who are to be considered the stakeholders and how they should be included in the multi-stakeholder process.  The goal is the important element, and determines the means. 
>>>
>>> I like Annette's discussion of the public interest, and how it opens a debate.  
>>>
>>> Multi-stakehoder processes exist because there are competing interests at play.  The hope is that this form of organization will be effective in producing a least unacceptable output across the set of stakeholders.  Different stakeholders will naturally claim that their point of view is the best, and Annette's requirement that they define their view of the public interest and then state why their approach best serves it.  Shedding this kind of light on a decision is likely to produce one of the better outcomes possible.
>>>
>>> Thank you again, Annette.
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 20, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Jean-Louis
>>>>
>>>> I don't personally use the 'equal footing' term. Configuration of
>>>> participation depends on the issue being discussed and accountability
>>>> involved. The term equal footing creates unnecessary confusion and can
>>>> be interpreted as saying that government and public sector actors don't
>>>> have an important role or specific responsibilities. It can also be abused.
>>>>
>>>> If one is developing a national action plan on local content creation
>>>> having all different stakeholders involved 'equally' would be good, but
>>>> I would want to see particularly strong participation of people from
>>>> libraries, arts and culture and education ministries, content and
>>>> creative industries and so on. I would like to see large entertainment
>>>> companies, but also small independent producers and film makers, writers
>>>> and artists and people from cultural minorities.
>>>>
>>>> I would be concerned if government or big business had a louder voice in
>>>> this discussion than other stakeholders, as that might end up silencing
>>>> some voices, and reducing diversity of views. But that does not mean
>>>> that we don't need to hear from government, or from big business.
>>>> Although I would hope they use the opportunity to listen, not just speak.
>>>>
>>>> If it is a decision about how to tax global internet companies they
>>>> should have a voice in the pre-policy consultation process, but they
>>>> should not be making the decision. That is a decision that needs to be
>>>> made - transparently - by governments and intergovernmental
>>>> institutions. I would like civil society to be involved in this and I
>>>> would like public-interest economists to give input, and for the media
>>>> to be present so that we have more transparency. And I would like the
>>>> tax collection agencies to speak too.... as they know whether compliance
>>>> is likely to take place or not.
>>>>
>>>> On public interest.. for me the power of this concept is that it opens a
>>>> debate. It forces a discussion on what the broadest possible public
>>>> interest is. Just having a room full of different stakeholders will
>>>> bring you diversity, but they might just all talk about what it is
>>>> matters most to them as interest or stakeholder groups. So governments
>>>> might talk about national security, operators about intermediary
>>>> liability, civil society about freedom of expression...
>>>>
>>>> ...but if the obligation of the discussion is to serve the broadest
>>>> possible public interest they must all make the case of WHY the position
>>>> they are advocating for will serve that interest, and state how they
>>>> understand the public interest.
>>>>
>>>> And one should not make assumptions about who will argue for what. E.g
>>>> in some countries at present, small private sector content producers are
>>>> much more concerned with having a publicly funded public broadcaster
>>>> than government is. To assume that governments are in all cases the most
>>>> reliable custodians of the 'public interest' is wishful thinking.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I am being naive, but in my view having a public-interest
>>>> orientation makes a big difference. And that is why I was so pleased
>>>> when the NETmundial statement said that internet governance should be in
>>>> the public interest.
>>>>
>>>> It defines a common purpose, and a common measure - even if there will
>>>> still be different views of what serves the public interest best.
>>>>
>>>> I often say to telecom regulators - am actually in an event with African
>>>> regulators this minute - that their role is not primarily to balance
>>>> interests among operators - their role is to protect and promote the
>>>> interest of users/consumers/the public.
>>>>
>>>> Jean-Louis, I will not be in Geneva, but from APC there will be Shawna
>>>> Finnegan from APC staff for part of it, and Aida Mahmutovic who is on
>>>> APC's member council, representing our member in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
>>>>
>>>> Warm greetings
>>>>
>>>> Anriette
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

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

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Fri May 22 03:46:30 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 09:46:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Post-2015 agenda: 26-27 May UN General Assembly
 interactive hearings (will be web cast)
In-Reply-To: <1121144349770.1114497358550.621.0.231515JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com>
References: <1121144349770.1114497358550.621.0.231515JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com>
Message-ID: <555EDED6.9010202@apc.org>


Dear all

For those of us that are working on the post-2015 development agenda.

Who will be there in person?

Anriette

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=cbf5a081-f78c-46db-b15c-933947ca11e2&c=07796770-ac43-11e3-ba27-d4ae528440e0&ch=0858f200-ac43-11e3-ba7c-d4ae528440e0

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

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

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

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Fri May 22 04:45:02 2015
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 10:45:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Public interest and multi-stakeholder
 participation, was Re: Call for Participation: Global Congress ..
In-Reply-To: <555EDE1A.70104@apc.org>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <D17ECFBB.401F8%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CAMz5XN5xvZpoWiFgGrr9Gj_LOA9o=mmOHC6hfQm6ODU+MBYE9g@mail.gmail.com> <D17F5C7D.404EB%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net> <D17F802E.4087D%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <555C5C6A.5020606@apc.org> <307713677.20109.1432127727119.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m20> <555C9D13.7030803@apc.org> <240F45B0-9EAC-442A-B698-A09C0239C59B@gmail.com> <A742DAF9-8F2E-4C25-B03E-1E5E13A410BD@gmail.com> <555E443A.9060409@softwarefreedom.org> <555EDE1A.70104@apc.org>
Message-ID: <64F57A69-8E56-472B-8D8E-861D32429FCD@gmail.com>

Hello

Yes, it would be extremely useful to compile info on how the public interest and similar concepts have been dealt with in different countries, legal systems, and languages.  I’ve pointed this out several times in various ICANN discussions but I’ve seen no indication yet that this will be taken on board in the effort mandated by the current strategic plan to devise a ‘consensus definition’ specific to ICANN’s operations.  It’d be problematic if the only source material considered is drawn from e.g. US domestic telecom regulation.  It’d also be problematic if the promised community dialogue on the matter actually turns out to be staff/board-controlled process.  That’d be another easily avoidable misstep but there are alas precedents and thus far there are no clear signs to the contrary.  Hence the workshop proposal is an attempt to encourage an open dialogue, one that goes beyond people engaged in the ICANN environment.

Of course, a broad debate could easily turn into an indeterminate mess.  Even within ICANN civil society, the debates thus far have revealed strong disagreement about whether we should even try to think this through.  Some people maintain that the term is so vague and intrinsically undefinable that any deeper discussion will simply be captured by powerful commercial interests or governments.  They point to the so-called Public Interest Commitments that have been incorporated into contracts which sometimes include excessive intellectual property protections, and to Government Advisory Committee efforts to limit strings ‘in the public interest,’ as evidence that abusive appropriations of the term are inevitable.  Others argue that it is the very lack of any shared understanding that invites such abuse, and insofar as the concept is already being cited as a rationale in various international instruments, trying to at least bound if not precisely define it before we throw our hands up is worth the effort.  And that’s just civil society—once all the other parties start to weigh in with their preferred formulations, the divisions will presumably deepen and become more complex. 

It may be worth recalling that ten years ago a lot of people argued we could never arrive at a consensual definition of Internet governance.  Governments and stakeholders were advancing preferred definitions that happened to suit their respective material and ideational interests, and the WSIS process was looking likely to end in a train wreck. Whether we could have concluded the Tunis Agenda without at least a working definition of the core point of contention is an interesting question.  

Best

Bill

> On May 22, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Mishi
> 
> This is very helpful. Would be good if people can share definitions from
> their own jurisdictions.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 21/05/2015 22:46, Mishi Choudhary wrote:
>> Thanks Bill! This will be useful. Different jurisdictions talk about the
>> term differently.
>> 
>> In Black's Law Dictionary  "public interest" is defined as follows:
>> 
>> Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which
>> their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean
>> anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters
>> in question. Interest shared by national government
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I can remember long discussions about this term during an important
>> education related case in India on which I worked at the turn of this
>> century. Herein below, I quote:
>> 
>> 
>> "Public interest means those interest which concern the public at large.
>> Matter of public interest 'does not mean that which is interesting as
>> gratifying curiosity or love of information or amusement; but that in
>> which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some
>> interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected' (per
>> Campbell, CJ., R. v. Bedfordshire, 4E and B, 541, 542).
>> 
>> 
>> The expression 'public interest' is not capable of
>> precise definition and has not a rigid meaning and is elastic and takes
>> its colours from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying
>> with the time and state for society and its needs. Thus what is 'public
>> interest' today may not be so considered a decade later.
>> 
>> 
>> On 05/21/2015 08:42 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> In light of this discussion, I thought I’d bring to peoples' attention this workshop to be held at the IGF meeting in Brazil in November:
>>> 
>>> No. 52 The Global “Public Interest” in Critical Internet Resources
>>> http://intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/52 <http://intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/52>
>>> 
>>> Would be happy to see folks and continue the conversation there.
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>>> On May 20, 2015, at 7:20 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> This is one of the best expositions of the multi-stakeholder model and the importance of the orientation toward the global public interest that I have ever seen.  Thank you, Anriette.
>>>> 
>>>> In some quarters, multi-stakeholderism has almost become a religion, to be accepted on faith, with doubters shunned and excluded.  IMO this is counterproductive both to understanding the possibilities of multi-stakeholderism and to employing when it is the right model to use.   As Annette implies, there are all sorts of implementations of multi-stakeholderism, some where people come together on an equal footing, some not. Multi-stakeholder organizations are a means for achieving a goal, and it's the nature of the goal that affects who are to be considered the stakeholders and how they should be included in the multi-stakeholder process.  The goal is the important element, and determines the means. 
>>>> 
>>>> I like Annette's discussion of the public interest, and how it opens a debate.  
>>>> 
>>>> Multi-stakehoder processes exist because there are competing interests at play.  The hope is that this form of organization will be effective in producing a least unacceptable output across the set of stakeholders.  Different stakeholders will naturally claim that their point of view is the best, and Annette's requirement that they define their view of the public interest and then state why their approach best serves it.  Shedding this kind of light on a decision is likely to produce one of the better outcomes possible.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you again, Annette.
>>>> 
>>>> George
>>>> 
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On May 20, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Jean-Louis
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't personally use the 'equal footing' term. Configuration of
>>>>> participation depends on the issue being discussed and accountability
>>>>> involved. The term equal footing creates unnecessary confusion and can
>>>>> be interpreted as saying that government and public sector actors don't
>>>>> have an important role or specific responsibilities. It can also be abused.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If one is developing a national action plan on local content creation
>>>>> having all different stakeholders involved 'equally' would be good, but
>>>>> I would want to see particularly strong participation of people from
>>>>> libraries, arts and culture and education ministries, content and
>>>>> creative industries and so on. I would like to see large entertainment
>>>>> companies, but also small independent producers and film makers, writers
>>>>> and artists and people from cultural minorities.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would be concerned if government or big business had a louder voice in
>>>>> this discussion than other stakeholders, as that might end up silencing
>>>>> some voices, and reducing diversity of views. But that does not mean
>>>>> that we don't need to hear from government, or from big business.
>>>>> Although I would hope they use the opportunity to listen, not just speak.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If it is a decision about how to tax global internet companies they
>>>>> should have a voice in the pre-policy consultation process, but they
>>>>> should not be making the decision. That is a decision that needs to be
>>>>> made - transparently - by governments and intergovernmental
>>>>> institutions. I would like civil society to be involved in this and I
>>>>> would like public-interest economists to give input, and for the media
>>>>> to be present so that we have more transparency. And I would like the
>>>>> tax collection agencies to speak too.... as they know whether compliance
>>>>> is likely to take place or not.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On public interest.. for me the power of this concept is that it opens a
>>>>> debate. It forces a discussion on what the broadest possible public
>>>>> interest is. Just having a room full of different stakeholders will
>>>>> bring you diversity, but they might just all talk about what it is
>>>>> matters most to them as interest or stakeholder groups. So governments
>>>>> might talk about national security, operators about intermediary
>>>>> liability, civil society about freedom of expression...
>>>>> 
>>>>> ...but if the obligation of the discussion is to serve the broadest
>>>>> possible public interest they must all make the case of WHY the position
>>>>> they are advocating for will serve that interest, and state how they
>>>>> understand the public interest.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And one should not make assumptions about who will argue for what. E.g
>>>>> in some countries at present, small private sector content producers are
>>>>> much more concerned with having a publicly funded public broadcaster
>>>>> than government is. To assume that governments are in all cases the most
>>>>> reliable custodians of the 'public interest' is wishful thinking.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps I am being naive, but in my view having a public-interest
>>>>> orientation makes a big difference. And that is why I was so pleased
>>>>> when the NETmundial statement said that internet governance should be in
>>>>> the public interest.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It defines a common purpose, and a common measure - even if there will
>>>>> still be different views of what serves the public interest best.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I often say to telecom regulators - am actually in an event with African
>>>>> regulators this minute - that their role is not primarily to balance
>>>>> interests among operators - their role is to protect and promote the
>>>>> interest of users/consumers/the public.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jean-Louis, I will not be in Geneva, but from APC there will be Shawna
>>>>> Finnegan from APC staff for part of it, and Aida Mahmutovic who is on
>>>>> APC's member council, representing our member in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Warm greetings
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

*********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150522/a2a7d76e/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  Fri May 22 05:12:41 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 10:12:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net> <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>

My reading of WSIS is that the original intention was to explore how the benefits of this marvellous new technology might be shared globally and particularly through the application of ICTs to the issues/opportunities for economic and social development particularly in Less Developed Countries. The linking of the governance aspects with the developmental/social justice aspects was to ensure that however the Internet was to be “governed” it would be such as to ensure the means for the widest possible dispersal of benefits.

 

There was however a splitting of emphases in WSIS with an ultimate emphasis on “governance” at the expense of “development” as was strongly promoted by the Developed Countries (and those elements of Civil Society which chose to focus on a free speech agenda rather than a social justice agenda). This ensured that the original objectives for “governance” of the Internet would be lost to be replaced initially by essentially technical issues related to “governance” on the one side and ICT for Development initiatives undertaken (and thus doomed) by proceeding without an integration into a broad based and supportive policy framework, on the other.  The failure of the UN (and development agencies and others) to support a role for grassroots users and ICT practitioners in the WSIS process significantly reduced the leverage which the “developmental (and social justice) agenda” might have had and directly contributed to this unfortunate result.

 

The subsequent development of parallel but highly unequal tracks for “governance” and for “development/social justice” has allowed the “development” agenda to slip more or less off the radar for the multilaterals and the bilaterals even while the opportunities and risks for the “development” agenda have been accelerating.  The trivial way in which “development” is addressed at the IGF is one manifestation of this as is the formulaic and ritualistic (and essentially out of touch) way in which the “developmental” side has been dealt with in the various UNESCO and ITU and other UN forums up to and including the WSIS +10 process and the somewhat bizarre focussing on the “Data Revolution” (the “revolution” is of course about a lot more than simply “data”) in the MDG/SDG processes.

 

So to answer your question Bertrand if I had my druthers (and to be a bit more inclusive of what I would like to “unite”)  I would like to see a WSIS +10 which dealt with the reality of ICTs/the Internet in the context of social justice and here I would include not simply LDC’s but the increasing numbers of those being “excluded” in Developed Countries as well—specifically I would have it (and with the active involvement and promotion by CS) address issues of growing ICT/Internet based economic inequality, social exclusion, rural de-stabilization, youth unemployment and precarious work, linguistic and cultural homogenization, ICT induced job destruction, and mass surveillance among others.  I would want to see the WSIS +10 process reintegrate the governance and development/social justice elements to work towards democratic and decentralized global (Internet) governance and policy mechanisms sufficient to address these issues.

 

Mike

 

From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] 
Sent: May 21, 2015 4:41 PM
To: parminder
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Subject: Re: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)

 

Dear Parminder,

 

I can agree with several of the points you make and your description of the sequence of events is quite accurate. Some comments however and a question/proposal in the end that is the most important in my view.

 

Comments

 

I personally would not have been opposed to a full-fledged WSIS review (including potentially a summit level), provided however that it would have implemented additional improvement to the participation scheme achieved ten years ago. 

 

Actually, the preparatory meetings organized by Unesco in 2013 and ITU in 2014 were interesting experiments in terms of more participatory processes and drafting. But it did not seem to have impacted the minds of the New York representatives. 

 

As you rightly point out, in the discussions last year at the UNGA, the positions among governments were roughly:

- on the one hand those who put the emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation and traditionally did not want a heads of state type of event nor a long preparatory process (for both good and bad reasons), who also favored a meeting in Geneva

- on the other hand, as you said, "the more authoritarian countries among the G 77 also preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi stakeholder participation than what would have happened in Geneva, [and] wanted it to be summit level meeting"

 

I have not seen the position of the G77 that you mention and confess I did not follow this very closely. But as could be expected in pure intergovernmental discussions (as is the case in the UNGA) in the absence of a strong desire by all to reach an agreement, this divergence of views was only overcome with the sort of half-baked solution that we are now seeing (bits and pieces of each position). 

 

I do agree that it deprives everyone of an opportunity to have a serious review and that was the initial gist of my post to Michael: I do not expect much from a mere resolution adopted in a two-day meeting in New York with little if any involvement of non-governmental actors in the preparation. At best it will reconduct the IGF with little if any improvements.

 

Having participated for four years in the CSTD exercise every year, I can testify that none of the resolutions that we so painstakingly drafted in late night sessions contained anything more than copy and paste of the favorite sections of the various WSIS documents. I did not expect the intergovernmental discussions in New York about the WSIS+10 to produce anything significant - and I unfortunately was right.  

 

But isn't it unfair to put the blame on civil society (or part of it) for this outcome, as you seem to imply? After all, it did not have a say in the process. I suppose in addition that it was itself split on the right thing to do, which would have made it hard to launch a structured and strong campaign. 

 

It is a bit the same as the debate on who has weakened the IGF? Is it the western countries that strongly refused to move towards recommendations (in part true - although they provided 100% of its funding)? Is it the more radical developing countries governments who somehow progressively stopped coming as a way to reduce its legitimacy (also true). Or is it the throttling by UN DESA which made it hard to receive funds, did not replace the Chair and maintained just a skeleton of a secretariat that prevented anything more than the organization of the annual even to be done (very much so). 

 

In the case of the WSIS+10, the governments in the UNGA - not civil society - are the ones to blame for being unable to agree on anything coherent regarding the mere format to discuss these very important issues. And this does not bode well for any likelihood of progress on substance, hence the legitimate caution by many regarding the role that the UN can play in that regard. An unfortunate self-reinforcing feedback loop. 

 

We'll see what happens. 

 

Question/proposal

 

To end on a positive and more forward-looking note, what would be YOUR hopes for the WSIS+10 Review meeting and resolution? What do you think it can achieve? What could be civil society contribution to the shaping of the agenda and document? Suggestions welcome, as it might be a useful thread on this list - provided we focus on what unites rather than what divides. 

 

Best

 

Bertrand

 

PS: As a matter of clarification, I do not sit on the ICANN Board since the end of 2013 (the Buenos Aires meeting) and therefore have no association with the positions that it has taken since then on the issues at stake here. 




	

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry
("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")

	

BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE


Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director


email  <mailto:bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net> bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net


email  <mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com> bdelachapelle at gmail.com


twitter  <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> @IJurisdiction |  <https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle> @bdelachapelle

		

mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

		

 <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net> www.internetjurisdiction.net

	



	

 

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> > wrote:

 

On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:57 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

Michael, 

 

I am not sure I see what you mean below by "working to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"? 

 

What surely could undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it will most likely be less open to non-state actors - and civil society in particular - than the WSIS itself 10 years ago. Unless things have changed, and according to the excellent summary by APC <https://www.apc.org/en/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wsis10-review> : 

 

the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the high-level meeting of the General Assembly".


Bertrand

What Michael says above relates to how we reached the state of affair described in the cited section from APC's summary.

I am sure you know how we reached the situation whereby 

"

the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the high-level meeting of the General Assembly".  "

Over many months last year, and the year before, G 77 sought a full fledged WSIS plus 10 summit on the same style as the original WSIS, the extended preparatory meetings and all.... Developed countries, under the customary US leadership, simply refused. Some major NGOs that otherwise follow this process closely were either silent or actually supporting the developed country position in this stand off, and to that extent opposing the position of a full fledged WSIS summit, original WSIS style (which would have then taken place in Geneva, with multistakeholder participation at least at the same level as was in the original WSIS). When this was happening, I raised the issue a few times on these list but got no response. It is really strange in the circumstances to now rue that this has happened. 

It is a fact that the more authoritarian countries among the G 77 also preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi stakeholder participation than what would have happened in Geneva, even though they wanted it to be summit level meeting. However, G 77 as a group was ready to do it fully original WSIS style, with the leadership for this position taken by the more democratic developing countries. However, this position found no support from civil society and tech groups (ISOC) who otherwise were closely following the process, and there were in fact positions articulated that expressed some kinds of 'fear' about a possible full-fledged summit, with these positions largely aligning with developed country positions. 

That is what brought us were we are. Lets not escape the responsibility. 

Further, as I said in my earlier email, the CEO of ICANN - an organisation on whose board both you and Wolfgang sit - openly touted Net Mundial Initiative as something needed to stop governments from doing what they would in default (of NMI)  do through the WSIS and its preparatory process. With this kind of sentiment, publicly expressed, it is clear what ICANN and others of the dominant IG cohort think of the WSIS process....

Quoting Fadi  on why Net Mundial is needed -  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2

"We need to make sure that next June (referring to the start of WSIS prep process) we don't have delegation after delegation going to UNGA [the United Nations General Assembly] saying there are no solutions to these issues.

And then now to express regret about the health of the WSIS process !?




 

For sure, modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders are supposed to be put in place, but there is a big question mark in that regard at the moment, isn't it?

 

In that context, maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the IGF 2015. Why don't we make it so? 


Yes, that kind of sentiment is and was precisely the problem which led to where we stand today. But then lets not try to have our cake and eat it too ... 

parminder 



 

Best

 

Bertrand




	

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry
("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")

	
	
	

 

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:

Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the leading
"civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and UKG
(and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS
+10 process.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> 
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> ] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"
Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; parminder; David Cake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org

Subject: [governance] Why?

Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list
is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am
right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played
an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to
look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why
people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send,
be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the
CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?

The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
overtaken the discussion.

My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of
younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
(USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of
the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It
is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this
oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.

Wolfgang

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
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/20150522/b1ead4a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1415 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150522/b1ead4a6/attachment.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 gurstein at gmail.com  Fri May 22 08:47:27 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 13:47:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <7F05FEE8-46C1-47A6-AE91-78429031CAC7@consensus.pro>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net> <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com> <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com> <7F05FEE8-46C1-47A6-AE91-78429031CAC7@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <08ef01d0948d$7754a540$65fdefc0$@gmail.com>

A few comments inline...

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] 
Sent: May 22, 2015 1:20 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Cc: Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE; parminder; Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Subject: Re: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)


--Apple-Mail=_DA554BC9-F07A-49C4-A838-9BA0A9677C0F
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_1D259986-7B35-4727-AE14-796B6AAF7A0D"


--Apple-Mail=_1D259986-7B35-4727-AE14-796B6AAF7A0D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252

I think there is a lot of merit to this argument, but I would suggest a =
few modifications:

* When WSIS was concluded there was little to no discussion of matters =
Internet in the various policy organs of the international system.=20
* WSIS was concluded alongside the MDGs but without interprocess links =
because the development community did not have it as a priority - they =
were, and are, more concerned with the big ticket items of =
infrastructure, food, sanitation, education, health etc.=20
[MG] true

* There wasn't a huge amount of money being spent on connectivity =
outside of OECD countries especially in the developing world, nor was =
the Internet yet a large impact across traditional industries, so no big =
focus on it from an economic standpoint, either.
[MG] true

* Development agencies therefore saw the idea of spending on ICTs =
largely as a defocus from their traditional activities, and the =
demandeurs from a political standpoint of development assistance were =
not prioritising ICTs, either.=20
[MG] Only partially true... by the time of WSIS Tunis the World Bank, the
UNDP and many of the bilaterals were already on the ICT bandwagon at least
to some degree...

* Looked at differently and taking into account the above the focus on =
the data revolution is understandable and not bizarre: the NY community =
has at least realised that ICTs can help determine how effectively =
development priorities have or are being met (as a measuring device); we =
just need them to take the next step and recognise that ICTs are =
integral to successfully delivering development.=20
[MG] a matter of opinion... focusing on the descriptors rather than what is
being described is not particularly useful (and to a considerable degree
profoundly beside the point) as the only significant ICT element in the MDGs
in the third decade of the ICT revolution...

Going forward I would like to see a focus on ICTs improving people's =
actual lives in a concrete sense, and the governance and social justice =
element being kept out of that so we don't see another decade of endless =
debate about sovereignty and the role of the state in society (which is =
frankly what is really behind all of the government-to-government IG =
disputes. 
[MG] okay but the question was specifically referring to WSIS +10 and it is
to my mind very difficult to remove issues of governance (policy) and values
(social justice) from initiatives towards "improving people's lives"
 
Having another decade of defocus from actual development would =
be an enormous tragedy IMO. 
[MG] agree

Ensuring a constructive link from the WSIS =
action lines to successful implementation of the MDGs should be at the =
cornerstone of the conclusion of the WSIS+10 process. 
[MG] completely agree

Frankly, the =
entire international system is tuning itself to its role in the MDGs and =
WSIS should not be exempt from that.=20
[MG] interesting point since I'm assuming that you are referring to the
multilateral system as "the international system"... I think one message
that current discussions of global (Internet) Governance has made extremely
clear is that when we now consider the "international system" we need to go
rather beyond the multilaterals to include the variety of new "stakeholders"
and figuring out what role they can play in initiatives such as what we are
discussing.

M


On 22 May 2015, at 11:12, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> My reading of WSIS is that the original intention was to explore how =
the benefits of this marvellous new technology might be shared globally =
and particularly through the application of ICTs to the =
issues/opportunities for economic and social development particularly in =
Less Developed Countries. The linking of the governance aspects with the =
developmental/social justice aspects was to ensure that however the =
Internet was to be =93governed=94 it would be such as to ensure the =
means for the widest possible dispersal of benefits.
> =20
> There was however a splitting of emphases in WSIS with an ultimate =
emphasis on =93governance=94 at the expense of =93development=94 as was =
strongly promoted by the Developed Countries (and those elements of =
Civil Society which chose to focus on a free speech agenda rather than a =
social justice agenda). This ensured that the original objectives for =
=93governance=94 of the Internet would be lost to be replaced initially =
by essentially technical issues related to =93governance=94 on the one =
side and ICT for Development initiatives undertaken (and thus doomed) by =
proceeding without an integration into a broad based and supportive =
policy framework, on the other.  The failure of the UN (and development =
agencies and others) to support a role for grassroots users and ICT =
practitioners in the WSIS process significantly reduced the leverage =
which the =93developmental (and social justice) agenda=94 might have had =
and directly contributed to this unfortunate result.
> =20
> The subsequent development of parallel but highly unequal tracks for =
=93governance=94 and for =93development/social justice=94 has allowed =
the =93development=94 agenda to slip more or less off the radar for the =
multilaterals and the bilaterals even while the opportunities and risks =
for the =93development=94 agenda have been accelerating.  The trivial =
way in which =93development=94 is addressed at the IGF is one =
manifestation of this as is the formulaic and ritualistic (and =
essentially out of touch) way in which the =93developmental=94 side has =
been dealt with in the various UNESCO and ITU and other UN forums up to =
and including the WSIS +10 process and the somewhat bizarre focussing on =
the =93Data Revolution=94 (the =93revolution=94 is of course about a lot =
more than simply =93data=94) in the MDG/SDG processes.
> =20
> So to answer your question Bertrand if I had my druthers (and to be a =
bit more inclusive of what I would like to =93unite=94)  I would like to =
see a WSIS +10 which dealt with the reality of ICTs/the Internet in the =
context of social justice and here I would include not simply LDC=92s =
but the increasing numbers of those being =93excluded=94 in Developed =
Countries as well=97specifically I would have it (and with the active =
involvement and promotion by CS) address issues of growing ICT/Internet =
based economic inequality, social exclusion, rural de-stabilization, =
youth unemployment and precarious work, linguistic and cultural =
homogenization, ICT induced job destruction, and mass surveillance among =
others.  I would want to see the WSIS +10 process reintegrate the =
governance and development/social justice elements to work towards =
democratic and decentralized global (Internet) governance and policy =
mechanisms sufficient to address these issues.
> =20
> Mike
> =20
> From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]=20
> Sent: May 21, 2015 4:41 PM
> To: parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein; Kleinw=E4chter, =
Wolfgang
> Subject: Re: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
> =20
> Dear Parminder,
> =20
> I can agree with several of the points you make and your description =
of the sequence of events is quite accurate. Some comments however and a =
question/proposal in the end that is the most important in my view.
> =20
> Comments
> =20
> I personally would not have been opposed to a full-fledged WSIS review =
(including potentially a summit level), provided however that it would =
have implemented additional improvement to the participation scheme =
achieved ten years ago.=20
> =20
> Actually, the preparatory meetings organized by Unesco in 2013 and ITU =
in 2014 were interesting experiments in terms of more participatory =
processes and drafting. But it did not seem to have impacted the minds =
of the New York representatives.=20
> =20
> As you rightly point out, in the discussions last year at the UNGA, =
the positions among governments were roughly:
> - on the one hand those who put the emphasis on multi-stakeholder =
participation and traditionally did not want a heads of state type of =
event nor a long preparatory process (for both good and bad reasons), =
who also favored a meeting in Geneva
> - on the other hand, as you said, "the more authoritarian countries =
among the G 77 also preferred it to move to New York, with much less =
multi stakeholder participation than what would have happened in Geneva, =
[and] wanted it to be summit level meeting"
> =20
> I have not seen the position of the G77 that you mention and confess I =
did not follow this very closely. But as could be expected in pure =
intergovernmental discussions (as is the case in the UNGA) in the =
absence of a strong desire by all to reach an agreement, this divergence =
of views was only overcome with the sort of half-baked solution that we =
are now seeing (bits and pieces of each position).=20
> =20
> I do agree that it deprives everyone of an opportunity to have a =
serious review and that was the initial gist of my post to Michael: I do =
not expect much from a mere resolution adopted in a two-day meeting in =
New York with little if any involvement of non-governmental actors in =
the preparation. At best it will reconduct the IGF with little if any =
improvements.
> =20
> Having participated for four years in the CSTD exercise every year, I =
can testify that none of the resolutions that we so painstakingly =
drafted in late night sessions contained anything more than copy and =
paste of the favorite sections of the various WSIS documents. I did not =
expect the intergovernmental discussions in New York about the WSIS+10 =
to produce anything significant - and I unfortunately was right. =20
> =20
> But isn't it unfair to put the blame on civil society (or part of it) =
for this outcome, as you seem to imply? After all, it did not have a say =
in the process. I suppose in addition that it was itself split on the =
right thing to do, which would have made it hard to launch a structured =
and strong campaign.=20
> =20
> It is a bit the same as the debate on who has weakened the IGF? Is it =
the western countries that strongly refused to move towards =
recommendations (in part true - although they provided 100% of its =
funding)? Is it the more radical developing countries governments who =
somehow progressively stopped coming as a way to reduce its legitimacy =
(also true). Or is it the throttling by UN DESA which made it hard to =
receive funds, did not replace the Chair and maintained just a skeleton =
of a secretariat that prevented anything more than the organization of =
the annual even to be done (very much so).=20
> =20
> In the case of the WSIS+10, the governments in the UNGA - not civil =
society - are the ones to blame for being unable to agree on anything =
coherent regarding the mere format to discuss these very important =
issues. And this does not bode well for any likelihood of progress on =
substance, hence the legitimate caution by many regarding the role that =
the UN can play in that regard. An unfortunate self-reinforcing feedback =
loop.=20
> =20
> We'll see what happens.=20
> =20
> Question/proposal
> =20
> To end on a positive and more forward-looking note, what would be YOUR =
hopes for the WSIS+10 Review meeting and resolution? What do you think =
it can achieve? What could be civil society contribution to the shaping =
of the agenda and document? Suggestions welcome, as it might be a useful =
thread on this list - provided we focus on what unites rather than what =
divides.=20
> =20
> Best
> =20
> Bertrand
> =20
> PS: As a matter of clarification, I do not sit on the ICANN Board =
since the end of 2013 (the Buenos Aires meeting) and therefore have no =
association with the positions that it has taken since then on the =
issues at stake here.=20
>=20
> "Le plus beau m=E9tier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine =
de Saint Exup=E9ry
> ("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
> BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE
> Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director
> email bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net
> email bdelachapelle at gmail.com
> twitter @IJurisdiction | @bdelachapelle
> mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> www.internetjurisdiction.net
> <image001.jpg>
> =20
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> =
wrote:
> =20
>=20
> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:57 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Michael,
> =20
> I am not sure I see what you mean below by "working to undermine and =
diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"?=20
> =20
> What surely could undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it will most =
likely be less open to non-state actors - and civil society in =
particular - than the WSIS itself 10 years ago. Unless things have =
changed, and according to the excellent summary by APC:=20
> =20
> the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General =
Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental =
negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting =
in an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the =
high-level meeting of the General Assembly".
>=20
> Bertrand
>=20
> What Michael says above relates to how we reached the state of affair =
described in the cited section from APC's summary.
>=20
> I am sure you know how we reached the situation whereby=20
>=20
> "
> the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General =
Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental =
negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting =
in an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the =
high-level meeting of the General Assembly".  "
>=20
> Over many months last year, and the year before, G 77 sought a full =
fledged WSIS plus 10 summit on the same style as the original WSIS, the =
extended preparatory meetings and all.... Developed countries, under the =
customary US leadership, simply refused. Some major NGOs that otherwise =
follow this process closely were either silent or actually supporting =
the developed country position in this stand off, and to that extent =
opposing the position of a full fledged WSIS summit, original WSIS style =
(which would have then taken place in Geneva, with multistakeholder =
participation at least at the same level as was in the original WSIS). =
When this was happening, I raised the issue a few times on these list =
but got no response. It is really strange in the circumstances to now =
rue that this has happened.=20
>=20
> It is a fact that the more authoritarian countries among the G 77 also =
preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi stakeholder =
participation than what would have happened in Geneva, even though they =
wanted it to be summit level meeting. However, G 77 as a group was ready =
to do it fully original WSIS style, with the leadership for this =
position taken by the more democratic developing countries. However, =
this position found no support from civil society and tech groups (ISOC) =
who otherwise were closely following the process, and there were in fact =
positions articulated that expressed some kinds of 'fear' about a =
possible full-fledged summit, with these positions largely aligning with =
developed country positions.=20
>=20
> That is what brought us were we are. Lets not escape the =
responsibility.=20
>=20
> Further, as I said in my earlier email, the CEO of ICANN - an =
organisation on whose board both you and Wolfgang sit - openly touted =
Net Mundial Initiative as something needed to stop governments from =
doing what they would in default (of NMI)  do through the WSIS and its =
preparatory process. With this kind of sentiment, publicly expressed, it =
is clear what ICANN and others of the dominant IG cohort think of the =
WSIS process....
>=20
> Quoting Fadi  on why Net Mundial is needed -  =
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_=
initiative_gets_desperate/?page=3D2
>=20
> "We need to make sure that next June (referring to the start of WSIS =
prep process) we don't have delegation after delegation going to UNGA =
[the United Nations General Assembly] saying there are no solutions to =
these issues.
>=20
> And then now to express regret about the health of the WSIS process !?
>=20
>=20
> =20
> For sure, modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders =
are supposed to be put in place, but there is a big question mark in =
that regard at the moment, isn't it?
> =20
> In that context, maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the =
IGF 2015. Why don't we make it so?
>=20
> Yes, that kind of sentiment is and was precisely the problem which led =
to where we stand today. But then lets not try to have our cake and eat =
it too ...=20
>=20
> parminder=20
>=20
> =20
> Best
> =20
> Bertrand
>=20
> "Le plus beau m=E9tier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine =
de Saint Exup=E9ry
> ("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
> =20
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> =
wrote:
> Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd =
in
> that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the =
leading
> "civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG =
and UKG
> (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the =
WSIS
> +10 process.
>=20
> M
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of =
"Kleinw=E4chter,
> Wolfgang"
> Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; =
Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
> Subject: [governance] Why?
>=20
> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on =
this list
> is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and =
"I am
> right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once =
played
> an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable =
to
> look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS =
10+
> processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough =
consensus? Why
> people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of =
a
> century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you =
send,
> be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language =
of the
> CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
>=20
> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
> overtaken the discussion.
>=20
> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new =
generation of
> younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance =
of
> real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources =
and
> energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
> multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a =
compromise
> between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector =
leadership
> (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive =
part of
> the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an =
opportunity. It
> is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build =
on this
> oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>=20
> Wolfgang
>=20
> =20
> =20
> =20
>=20
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> =20
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> =20
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> =20
> =20
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>=20
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>=20
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


--Apple-Mail=_1D259986-7B35-4727-AE14-796B6AAF7A0D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=windows-1252

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dwindows-1252"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">I =
think there is a lot of merit to this argument, but I would suggest a =
few modifications:<div><br></div><div>* When WSIS was concluded there =
was little to no discussion of matters Internet in the various policy =
organs of the international system.&nbsp;</div><div>* WSIS was concluded =
alongside the MDGs but without interprocess links because the =
development community did not have it as a priority - they were, and =
are, more concerned with the big ticket items of infrastructure, food, =
sanitation, education, health etc.&nbsp;</div><div>* There wasn't a huge =
amount of money being spent on connectivity outside of OECD countries =
especially in the developing world, nor was the Internet yet a large =
impact across traditional industries, so no big focus on it from an =
economic standpoint, either.</div><div>* Development agencies therefore =
saw the idea of spending on ICTs largely as a defocus from their =
traditional activities, and the demandeurs from a political standpoint =
of development assistance were not prioritising ICTs, =
either.&nbsp;</div><div>* Looked at differently and taking into account =
the above the focus on the data revolution is understandable and not =
bizarre: the NY community has at least realised that ICTs can help =
determine how effectively development priorities have or are being met =
(as a measuring device); we just need them to take the next step and =
recognise that ICTs are integral to successfully delivering =
development.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Going forward I would like =
to see a focus on ICTs improving people's actual lives in a concrete =
sense, and the governance and social justice element being kept out of =
that so we don't see another decade of endless debate about sovereignty =
and the role of the state in society (which is frankly what is really =
behind all of the government-to-government IG disputes. Having another =
decade of defocus from actual development would be an enormous tragedy =
IMO. Ensuring a constructive link from the WSIS action lines to =
successful implementation of the MDGs should be at the cornerstone of =
the conclusion of the WSIS+10 process. Frankly, the entire international =
system is tuning itself to its role in the MDGs and WSIS should not be =
exempt from that.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>
<br><div><div>On 22 May 2015, at 11:12, Michael Gurstein &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:gurstein at gmail.com">gurstein at gmail.com</a>&gt; =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div lang=3D"EN-CA" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" =
style=3D"font-family: OpenSans; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div class=3D"WordSection1" =
style=3D"page: WordSection1;"><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: =
rgb(31, 73, 125);">My reading of WSIS is that the original intention was =
to explore how the benefits of this marvellous new technology might be =
shared globally and particularly through the application of ICTs to the =
issues/opportunities for economic and social development particularly in =
Less Developed Countries. The linking of the governance aspects with the =
developmental/social justice aspects was to ensure that however the =
Internet was to be =93governed=94 it would be such as to ensure the =
means for the widest possible dispersal of =
benefits.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: =
rgb(31, 73, 125);">&nbsp;</span></div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: =
rgb(31, 73, 125);">There was however a splitting of emphases in WSIS =
with an ultimate emphasis on =93governance=94 at the expense of =
=93development=94 as was strongly promoted by the Developed Countries =
(and those elements of Civil Society which chose to focus on a free =
speech agenda rather than a social justice agenda). This ensured that =
the original objectives for =93governance=94 of the Internet would be =
lost to be replaced initially by essentially technical issues related to =
=93governance=94 on the one side and ICT for Development initiatives =
undertaken (and thus doomed) by proceeding without an integration into a =
broad based and supportive policy framework, on the other.&nbsp; The =
failure of the UN (and development agencies and others) to support a =
role for grassroots users and ICT practitioners in the WSIS process =
significantly reduced the leverage which the =93developmental (and =
social justice) agenda=94 might have had and directly contributed to =
this unfortunate result.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, =
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">&nbsp;</span></div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: =
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">The subsequent =
development of parallel but highly unequal tracks for =93governance=94 =
and for =93development/social justice=94 has allowed the =93development=94=
 agenda to slip more or less off the radar for the multilaterals and the =
bilaterals even while the opportunities and risks for the =93development=94=
 agenda have been accelerating. &nbsp;The trivial way in which =
=93development=94 is addressed at the IGF is one manifestation of this =
as is the formulaic and ritualistic (and essentially out of touch) way =
in which the =93developmental=94 side has been dealt with in the various =
UNESCO and ITU and other UN forums up to and including the WSIS +10 =
process and the somewhat bizarre focussing on the =93Data Revolution=94 =
(the =93revolution=94 is of course about a lot more than simply =93data=94=
) in the MDG/SDG processes.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, =
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">&nbsp;</span></div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: =
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">So to answer your =
question Bertrand if I had my druthers (and to be a bit more inclusive =
of what I would like to =93unite=94) &nbsp;I would like to see a WSIS =
+10 which dealt with the reality of ICTs/the Internet in the context of =
social justice and here I would include not simply LDC=92s but the =
increasing numbers of those being =93excluded=94 in Developed Countries =
as well=97specifically I would have it (and with the active involvement =
and promotion by CS) address issues of growing ICT/Internet based =
economic inequality, social exclusion, rural de-stabilization, youth =
unemployment and precarious work, linguistic and cultural =
homogenization, ICT induced job destruction, and mass surveillance among =
others.&nbsp; I would want to see the WSIS +10 process reintegrate the =
governance and development/social justice elements to work towards =
democratic and decentralized global (Internet) governance and policy =
mechanisms sufficient to address these =
issues.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: =
rgb(31, 73, 125);">&nbsp;</span></div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: =
rgb(31, 73, 125);">Mike<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm =
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, =
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">&nbsp;</span></div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><b><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size: 11pt; =
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span lang=3D"EN-US" =
style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span>Bertrand de La Chapelle [<a =
href=3D"mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com" style=3D"color: purple; =
text-decoration: underline;">mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com</a>]<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><br><b>Sent:</b><span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span>May 21, 2015 4:41 =
PM<br><b>To:</b><span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span>parminder<br><b>Cc:</b><span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><a =
href=3D"mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org" style=3D"color: purple; =
text-decoration: underline;">governance at lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Michael =
Gurstein; Kleinw=E4chter, Wolfgang<br><b>Subject:</b><span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span>Re: [governance] On WSIS+10 =
(was Re: Why?)<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Dear =
Parminder,<o:p></o:p></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">I can =
agree with several of the points you make and your description of the =
sequence of events is quite accurate. Some comments however and a =
question/proposal in the end that is the most important in my =
view.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><b>Comments</b><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">I =
personally would not have been opposed to a full-fledged WSIS review =
(including potentially a summit level), provided however that it would =
have implemented additional improvement to the participation scheme =
achieved ten years ago.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;">Actually, the preparatory meetings organized by =
Unesco in 2013 and ITU in 2014 were interesting experiments in terms of =
more participatory processes and drafting. But it did not seem to have =
impacted the minds of the New York =
representatives.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">As =
you rightly point out, in the discussions last year at the UNGA, the =
positions among governments were =
roughly:<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">- on =
the one hand those who put the emphasis on multi-stakeholder =
participation and traditionally did not want a heads of state type of =
event nor a long preparatory process (for both good and bad reasons), =
who also favored a meeting in Geneva<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;">- on the other hand, as you said, "the more =
authoritarian countries among the G 77 also preferred it to move to New =
York, with much less multi stakeholder participation than what would =
have happened in Geneva, [and] wanted it to be summit level =
meeting"<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">I =
have not seen the position of the G77 that you mention and confess I did =
not follow this very closely. But as could be expected in pure =
intergovernmental discussions (as is the case in the UNGA) in the =
absence of a strong desire by all to reach an agreement, this divergence =
of views was only overcome with the sort of half-baked solution that we =
are now seeing (bits and pieces of each =
position).&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm =
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">I do =
agree that it deprives everyone of an opportunity to have a serious =
review and that was the initial gist of my post to Michael: I do not =
expect much from a mere resolution adopted in a two-day meeting in New =
York with little if any involvement of non-governmental actors in the =
preparation. At best it will reconduct the IGF with little if any =
improvements.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;">Having participated for four years in the CSTD exercise every =
year, I can testify that none of the resolutions that we so =
painstakingly drafted in late night sessions contained anything more =
than copy and paste of the favorite sections of the various WSIS =
documents. I did not expect the intergovernmental discussions in New =
York about the WSIS+10 to produce anything significant - and I =
unfortunately was right. &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;">But isn't it unfair to put the blame on civil =
society (or part of it) for this outcome, as you seem to imply? After =
all, it did not have a say in the process. I suppose in addition that it =
was itself split on the right thing to do, which would have made it hard =
to launch a structured and strong =
campaign.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">It is =
a bit the same as the debate on who has weakened the IGF? Is it the =
western countries that strongly refused to move towards recommendations =
(in part true - although they provided 100% of its funding)? Is it the =
more radical developing countries governments who somehow progressively =
stopped coming as a way to reduce its legitimacy (also true). Or is it =
the throttling by UN DESA which made it hard to receive funds, did not =
replace the Chair and maintained just a skeleton of a secretariat that =
prevented anything more than the organization of the annual even to be =
done (very much so).&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;">In the case of the WSIS+10, the governments in the =
UNGA - not civil society - are the ones to blame for being unable to =
agree on anything coherent regarding the mere format to discuss these =
very important issues. And this does not bode well for any likelihood of =
progress on substance, hence the legitimate caution by many regarding =
the role that the UN can play in that regard. An unfortunate =
self-reinforcing feedback loop.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;">We'll see what =
happens.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><b>Question/proposal</b><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><b>To end on a positive and more forward-looking =
note, what would be YOUR hopes for the WSIS+10 Review meeting and =
resolution? What do you think it can achieve? What could be civil =
society contribution to the shaping of the agenda and document? =
Suggestions welcome, as it might be a useful thread on this list - =
provided we focus on what unites rather than what =
divides.</b>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm =
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;">Best<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;">Bertrand<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm =
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><b>PS</b>: As a matter of clarification, I do not sit on the =
ICANN Board since the end of 2013 (the Buenos Aires meeting) and =
therefore have no association with the positions that it has taken since =
then on the issues at stake here.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><br clear=3D"all"><o:p></o:p></div><div><table =
class=3D"MsoNormalTable" border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"3" cellpadding=3D"0" =
width=3D"600" style=3D"width: 450pt;"><tbody><tr style=3D"height: =
3.75pt;"><td colspan=3D"3" style=3D"padding: 0cm; height: =
3.75pt;"></td></tr><tr><td colspan=3D"3" style=3D"padding: 0cm;"><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif; line-height: 12pt;"><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt; =
font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(176, 173, 176);">"<em><span =
style=3D"font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Le plus beau m=E9tier des =
hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes</span></em>", Antoine de Saint =
Exup=E9ry<br>("<em><span style=3D"font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">There =
is no greater mission for humans than uniting =
humans</span></em>")<o:p></o:p></span></div></td></tr><tr style=3D"height:=
 7.5pt;"><td colspan=3D"3" style=3D"padding: 0cm; height: =
7.5pt;"></td></tr><tr><td colspan=3D"3" style=3D"padding: 0cm;"><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif; line-height: 12pt;"><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt; =
font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 138, 204); text-transform: =
uppercase;">BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE</span><span style=3D"font-size: =
10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(38, 38, =
38);"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td></tr><tr><td colspan=3D"3" =
style=3D"padding: 0cm;"><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: =
12pt;"><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; =
color: rgb(38, 38, 38);">Internet &amp; Jurisdiction Project | =
Director<o:p></o:p></span></div></td></tr><tr><td colspan=3D"3" =
style=3D"padding: 0cm;"><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: =
12pt;"><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; =
color: rgb(38, 38, 38);">email&nbsp;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: underline;"><span style=3D"color:=
 rgb(159, 157, 159); text-decoration: =
none;">bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net</span></a><o:p></o:p></span>=
</div></td></tr><tr><td colspan=3D"3" style=3D"padding: 0cm;"><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif; line-height: 12pt;"><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt; =
font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(38, 38, 38);">email&nbsp;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" style=3D"color: =
purple; text-decoration: underline;"><span style=3D"color: rgb(159, 157, =
159); text-decoration: =
none;">bdelachapelle at gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div></td></tr=
><tr><td style=3D"padding: 0cm;"><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: =
12pt;"><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; =
color: rgb(38, 38, 38);">twitter&nbsp;<a =
href=3D"https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: underline;"><span style=3D"color:=
 rgb(159, 157, 159); text-decoration: =
none;">@IJurisdiction</span></a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a =
href=3D"https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: underline;"><span style=3D"color:=
 rgb(159, 157, 159); text-decoration: =
none;">@bdelachapelle</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div></td><td =
style=3D"padding: 0cm;"></td><td style=3D"padding: =
0cm;"></td></tr><tr><td style=3D"padding: 0cm;"><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif; line-height: 12pt;"><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: =
Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(38, 38, 38);">mobile&nbsp;</span><span =
style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: =
rgb(159, 157, 159);">+33 (0)6 11 88 33 32</span><span style=3D"font-size: =
10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(38, 38, =
38);"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td><td style=3D"padding: 0cm;"></td><td =
style=3D"padding: 0cm;"></td></tr><tr><td colspan=3D"3" style=3D"padding: =
0cm;"><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; =
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 12pt;"><span =
style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(38, =
38, 38);"><a href=3D"http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/" =
target=3D"_blank" style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;"><span style=3D"color: rgb(159, 157, 159); text-decoration: =
none;">www.internetjurisdiction.net</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div></td=
></tr><tr style=3D"height: 3.75pt;"><td colspan=3D"3" style=3D"padding: =
0cm; height: 3.75pt;"></td></tr><tr><td colspan=3D"3" style=3D"padding: =
0cm;"><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; =
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 12pt;"><span =
style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(38, =
38, 38); border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: =
0cm;"><span>&lt;image001.jpg&gt;</span></span><span style=3D"font-size: =
10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(38, 38, =
38);"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td></tr><tr style=3D"height: =
3.75pt;"><td colspan=3D"3" style=3D"padding: 0cm; height: =
3.75pt;"></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">On =
Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, parminder &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:parminder at itforchange.net" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">parminder at itforchange.net</a>&gt; =
wrote:<o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style=3D"border-style: none none none =
solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1pt; =
padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt; margin-left: 4.8pt; margin-right: 0cm;"><p =
class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; =
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;">On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:57 PM, Bertrand de La =
Chapelle wrote:<o:p></o:p></div></div><blockquote style=3D"margin-top: =
5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-family: Arial, =
sans-serif;">Michael,</span><o:p></o:p></div><div><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I am not sure I see what you =
mean below by "working to undermine and diminish the significance of the =
WSIS+10"?&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">What surely could undermine =
the WSIS+10 process is that it will most likely be less open to =
non-state actors - and civil society in particular - than the WSIS =
itself 10 years ago. Unless things have changed, and according to =
the<span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><a =
href=3D"https://www.apc.org/en/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wsis10-=
review" target=3D"_blank" style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">excellent summary by =
APC</a>:&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><blockquote style=3D"margin-left: =
30pt; margin-right: 0cm;"><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i><span =
style=3D"font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">the review is going to =
be&nbsp;"a&nbsp;<span style=3D"">two-day high-level meeting of the =
General Assembly". The document will be prepared by =
"</span></span></i><i><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: =
Arial, sans-serif;">an intergovernmental negotiation process, which will =
include preparatory meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed =
outcome document, for adoption at the high-level meeting of the General =
Assembly".</span></i><o:p></o:p></div></blockquote></blockquote><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><br><i>Bertrand<br><br>What Michael says above =
relates to how we reached the state of affair described in the cited =
section</i><span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span>from APC's =
summary.<br><br>I am sure you know how we reached the situation =
whereby<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><br><br>"<o:p></o:p></div><bl=
ockquote style=3D"margin-left: 30pt; margin-right: 0cm;"><p =
class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; =
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i><span style=3D"font-family: =
Arial, sans-serif;">the review is going to be&nbsp;"a&nbsp;<span =
style=3D"">two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly". The =
document will be prepared by "</span></span></i><i><span =
style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">an =
intergovernmental negotiation process, which will include preparatory =
meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, =
for adoption at the high-level meeting of the General Assembly".&nbsp; =
"</span></i><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><i>Over many months last year, and the year before, G 77 sought =
a full fledged WSIS plus 10 summit on the same style as the original =
WSIS, the extended preparatory meetings and all.... Developed countries, =
under the customary US leadership, simply refused. Some m</i>ajor NGOs =
that otherwise follow this process closely were either silent or =
actually supporting the developed country position in this stand off, =
and to that extent opposing the position of a full fledged WSIS summit, =
original WSIS style (which would have then taken place in Geneva, with =
multistakeholder participation at least at the same level as was in the =
original WSIS). When this was happening, I raised the issue a few times =
on these list but got no response. It is really strange in the =
circumstances to now rue that this has happened.<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><br><br>It is a fact that =
the more authoritarian countries among the G 77 also preferred it to =
move to New York, with much less multi stakeholder participation than =
what would have happened in Geneva, even though they wanted it to be =
summit level meeting.<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><b><i>However, G 77 as a =
group was ready to do it fully original WSIS style</i></b>, with the =
leadership for this position taken by the more democratic developing =
countries. However, this position found no support from civil society =
and tech groups (ISOC) who otherwise were closely following the process, =
and there were in fact positions articulated that expressed some kinds =
of 'fear' about a possible full-fledged summit, with these positions =
largely aligning with developed country positions.<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><br><br>That is what =
brought us were we are. Lets not escape the responsibility.<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><br><br>Further, as I said =
in my earlier email, the CEO of ICANN - an organisation on whose board =
both you and Wolfgang sit - openly touted Net Mundial Initiative as =
something needed to stop governments from doing what they would in =
default (of NMI)&nbsp; do through the WSIS and its preparatory process. =
With this kind of sentiment, publicly expressed, it is clear what ICANN =
and others of the dominant IG cohort think of the WSIS =
process....<br><br>Quoting Fadi&nbsp; on why Net Mundial is needed =
-&nbsp;<span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><a =
href=3D"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_net=
mundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=3D2" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join=
_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=3D2</a><br><br>"We need to =
make sure that next June (referring to the start of WSIS prep process) =
we don't have delegation after delegation going to UNGA [the United =
Nations General Assembly] saying there are no solutions to these =
issues.<br><br>And then now to express regret about the health of the =
WSIS process !?<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></div><blockquote =
style=3D"margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">For sure, modalities for =
consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders are supposed to be put in =
place, but there is a big question mark in that regard at the moment, =
isn't it?</span><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm =
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In that context, maybe the =
motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the IGF 2015. Why don't we make it =
so?</span><o:p></o:p></div></div></blockquote><div style=3D"margin: 0cm =
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><br><span style=3D"font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Yes, that =
kind of sentiment is and was precisely the problem which led to where we =
stand today.<span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></span>But =
then lets not try to have our cake and eat it too ...<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><br><span style=3D"color: =
rgb(136, 136, 136);"><br>parminder<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></d=
iv><blockquote style=3D"margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: =
5pt;"><div><div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: =
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-family: Arial, =
sans-serif;">Best</span><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span =
style=3D"font-family: Arial, =
sans-serif;">Bertrand</span><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;"><br clear=3D"all"><o:p></o:p></div><div><table =
class=3D"MsoNormalTable" border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"3" cellpadding=3D"0" =
width=3D"600" style=3D"width: 450pt;"><tbody><tr style=3D"height: =
3.75pt;"><td style=3D"padding: 0cm; height: 3.75pt;"></td></tr><tr><td =
style=3D"padding: 0cm;"><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: =
12pt;"><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; =
color: rgb(176, 173, 176);">"<em><span style=3D"font-family: Arial, =
sans-serif;">Le plus beau m=E9tier des hommes, c'est d'unir les =
hommes</span></em>", Antoine de Saint Exup=E9ry<br>("<em><span =
style=3D"font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">There is no greater mission =
for humans than uniting =
humans</span></em>")<o:p></o:p></span></div></td></tr><tr style=3D"height:=
 7.5pt;"><td style=3D"padding: 0cm; height: 7.5pt;"></td></tr><tr><td =
style=3D"padding: 0cm;"></td></tr><tr style=3D"height: 3.75pt;"><td =
style=3D"padding: 0cm; height: =
3.75pt;"></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div><div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">On =
Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:gurstein at gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" style=3D"color: =
purple; text-decoration: underline;">gurstein at gmail.com</a>&gt; =
wrote:<o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style=3D"border-style: none none none =
solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1pt; =
padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt; margin-left: 4.8pt; margin-right: 0cm;"><div =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times =
New Roman', serif;">Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement =
below exceedingly odd in<br>that you seem to have ignored the manner in =
which a number of the leading<br>"civil society" organizations have been =
working alongside their USG and UKG<br>(and other) allies to undermine =
and diminish the significance of the WSIS<br>+10 process.<br><span =
style=3D"color: rgb(136, 136, 136);"><br>M<br></span><br>-----Original =
Message-----<br>From:<span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><a=
 href=3D"mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>[mailto:<a =
href=3D"mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of =
"Kleinw=E4chter,<br>Wolfgang"<br>Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM<br>To:<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><a =
href=3D"mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">governance at lists.igcaucus.org</a>; parminder; David =
Cake<br>Cc:<span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><a =
href=3D"mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">governance at lists.igcaucus.org</a>; BestBitsList; =
Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org<o:p></o:p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal" =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif;">Subject: [governance] Why?<br><br>Sorry for intervening: =
It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list<br>is occupied by =
hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am<br>right and =
you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played<br>an =
important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable =
to<br>look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming =
WSIS 10+<br>processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach =
rough consensus? Why<br>people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel =
has told us a quarter of a<br>century ago in his robustness princple: =
"Be conservative in what you send,<br>be liberal in what you accept". =
Why they do not remember the language of the<br>CS WSIS Geneva =
Declaration from 2003?<br><br>The Bali split (2013) has obviously long =
shadows and old warriors have<br>overtaken the discussion.<br><br>My =
hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation =
of<br>younger civil society people who feel more committed to the =
substance of<br>real civil society activities and do not waste the =
limited resources and<br>energies for infighting. And do not forget: The =
WGIG proposal for a<br>multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance =
(2005) was a compromise<br>between "governmental leadership" (China) and =
private sector leadership<br>(USA)and it opened the door for civil =
society to become an inclusive part of<br>the process. This was a boig =
achievement of that time and an opportunity. It<br>is now up to the next =
generation of civil society activists to build on this<br>oppportunity. =
It would be a big shame if this would be =
destroyed.<br><br>Wolfgang<o:p></o:p></p></div><div style=3D"margin: 0cm =
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></blockquote></div><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div></div><p class=3D"MsoNormal" =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New =
Roman', serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p></div><pre style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier =
New';">____________________________________________________________<o:p></=
o:p></pre><pre style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; =
font-family: 'Courier New';">You received this message as a subscriber =
on the list:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; =
font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
<a href=3D"mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">governance at lists.igcaucus.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: =
'Courier New';">To be removed from the list, visit:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: =
'Courier New';">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a =
href=3D"http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre=
 style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: =
'Courier New';"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></pre><pre style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">For all other =
list information and functions, see:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style=3D"margin:=
 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier =
New';">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a =
href=3D"http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target=3D"_blank" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><o:p></o:p></pre>=
<pre style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: =
'Courier New';">To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, =
see:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: =
10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a =
href=3D"http://www.igcaucus.org/" target=3D"_blank" style=3D"color: =
purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre =
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: =
'Courier New';"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></pre><pre style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm =
0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">Translate this =
email: <a href=3D"http://translate.google.com/translate_t" =
target=3D"_blank" style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><o:p></o:p></pre></=
blockquote><div style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; =
font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></blockquote></div><div style=3D"margin: =
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', =
serif;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div></div></div>_________________________=
___________________________________<br>You received this message as a =
subscriber on the list:<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a =
href=3D"mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org" style=3D"color: purple; =
text-decoration: underline;">governance at lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be =
removed from the list, visit:<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a =
href=3D"http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" style=3D"color: purple; =
text-decoration: =
underline;">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all =
other list information and functions, see:<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a =
href=3D"http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" style=3D"color: =
purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit =
your profile and to find the IGC's charter, =
see:<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=3D"http://www.igcaucus.org/" =
style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: =
underline;">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this =
email:<span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><a =
href=3D"http://translate.google.com/translate_t" style=3D"color: purple; =
text-decoration: =
underline;">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></div></blockquote>=
</div><br></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_1D259986-7B35-4727-AE14-796B6AAF7A0D--

--Apple-Mail=_DA554BC9-F07A-49C4-A838-9BA0A9677C0F
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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=v7U7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_DA554BC9-F07A-49C4-A838-9BA0A9677C0F--


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 May 22 08:19:33 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 14:19:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net> <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com> <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7F05FEE8-46C1-47A6-AE91-78429031CAC7@consensus.pro>

I think there is a lot of merit to this argument, but I would suggest a few modifications:

* When WSIS was concluded there was little to no discussion of matters Internet in the various policy organs of the international system. 
* WSIS was concluded alongside the MDGs but without interprocess links because the development community did not have it as a priority - they were, and are, more concerned with the big ticket items of infrastructure, food, sanitation, education, health etc. 
* There wasn't a huge amount of money being spent on connectivity outside of OECD countries especially in the developing world, nor was the Internet yet a large impact across traditional industries, so no big focus on it from an economic standpoint, either.
* Development agencies therefore saw the idea of spending on ICTs largely as a defocus from their traditional activities, and the demandeurs from a political standpoint of development assistance were not prioritising ICTs, either. 
* Looked at differently and taking into account the above the focus on the data revolution is understandable and not bizarre: the NY community has at least realised that ICTs can help determine how effectively development priorities have or are being met (as a measuring device); we just need them to take the next step and recognise that ICTs are integral to successfully delivering development. 

Going forward I would like to see a focus on ICTs improving people's actual lives in a concrete sense, and the governance and social justice element being kept out of that so we don't see another decade of endless debate about sovereignty and the role of the state in society (which is frankly what is really behind all of the government-to-government IG disputes. Having another decade of defocus from actual development would be an enormous tragedy IMO. Ensuring a constructive link from the WSIS action lines to successful implementation of the MDGs should be at the cornerstone of the conclusion of the WSIS+10 process. Frankly, the entire international system is tuning itself to its role in the MDGs and WSIS should not be exempt from that. 


On 22 May 2015, at 11:12, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> My reading of WSIS is that the original intention was to explore how the benefits of this marvellous new technology might be shared globally and particularly through the application of ICTs to the issues/opportunities for economic and social development particularly in Less Developed Countries. The linking of the governance aspects with the developmental/social justice aspects was to ensure that however the Internet was to be “governed” it would be such as to ensure the means for the widest possible dispersal of benefits.
>  
> There was however a splitting of emphases in WSIS with an ultimate emphasis on “governance” at the expense of “development” as was strongly promoted by the Developed Countries (and those elements of Civil Society which chose to focus on a free speech agenda rather than a social justice agenda). This ensured that the original objectives for “governance” of the Internet would be lost to be replaced initially by essentially technical issues related to “governance” on the one side and ICT for Development initiatives undertaken (and thus doomed) by proceeding without an integration into a broad based and supportive policy framework, on the other.  The failure of the UN (and development agencies and others) to support a role for grassroots users and ICT practitioners in the WSIS process significantly reduced the leverage which the “developmental (and social justice) agenda” might have had and directly contributed to this unfortunate result.
>  
> The subsequent development of parallel but highly unequal tracks for “governance” and for “development/social justice” has allowed the “development” agenda to slip more or less off the radar for the multilaterals and the bilaterals even while the opportunities and risks for the “development” agenda have been accelerating.  The trivial way in which “development” is addressed at the IGF is one manifestation of this as is the formulaic and ritualistic (and essentially out of touch) way in which the “developmental” side has been dealt with in the various UNESCO and ITU and other UN forums up to and including the WSIS +10 process and the somewhat bizarre focussing on the “Data Revolution” (the “revolution” is of course about a lot more than simply “data”) in the MDG/SDG processes.
>  
> So to answer your question Bertrand if I had my druthers (and to be a bit more inclusive of what I would like to “unite”)  I would like to see a WSIS +10 which dealt with the reality of ICTs/the Internet in the context of social justice and here I would include not simply LDC’s but the increasing numbers of those being “excluded” in Developed Countries as well—specifically I would have it (and with the active involvement and promotion by CS) address issues of growing ICT/Internet based economic inequality, social exclusion, rural de-stabilization, youth unemployment and precarious work, linguistic and cultural homogenization, ICT induced job destruction, and mass surveillance among others.  I would want to see the WSIS +10 process reintegrate the governance and development/social justice elements to work towards democratic and decentralized global (Internet) governance and policy mechanisms sufficient to address these issues.
>  
> Mike
>  
> From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] 
> Sent: May 21, 2015 4:41 PM
> To: parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> Subject: Re: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
>  
> Dear Parminder,
>  
> I can agree with several of the points you make and your description of the sequence of events is quite accurate. Some comments however and a question/proposal in the end that is the most important in my view.
>  
> Comments
>  
> I personally would not have been opposed to a full-fledged WSIS review (including potentially a summit level), provided however that it would have implemented additional improvement to the participation scheme achieved ten years ago. 
>  
> Actually, the preparatory meetings organized by Unesco in 2013 and ITU in 2014 were interesting experiments in terms of more participatory processes and drafting. But it did not seem to have impacted the minds of the New York representatives. 
>  
> As you rightly point out, in the discussions last year at the UNGA, the positions among governments were roughly:
> - on the one hand those who put the emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation and traditionally did not want a heads of state type of event nor a long preparatory process (for both good and bad reasons), who also favored a meeting in Geneva
> - on the other hand, as you said, "the more authoritarian countries among the G 77 also preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi stakeholder participation than what would have happened in Geneva, [and] wanted it to be summit level meeting"
>  
> I have not seen the position of the G77 that you mention and confess I did not follow this very closely. But as could be expected in pure intergovernmental discussions (as is the case in the UNGA) in the absence of a strong desire by all to reach an agreement, this divergence of views was only overcome with the sort of half-baked solution that we are now seeing (bits and pieces of each position). 
>  
> I do agree that it deprives everyone of an opportunity to have a serious review and that was the initial gist of my post to Michael: I do not expect much from a mere resolution adopted in a two-day meeting in New York with little if any involvement of non-governmental actors in the preparation. At best it will reconduct the IGF with little if any improvements.
>  
> Having participated for four years in the CSTD exercise every year, I can testify that none of the resolutions that we so painstakingly drafted in late night sessions contained anything more than copy and paste of the favorite sections of the various WSIS documents. I did not expect the intergovernmental discussions in New York about the WSIS+10 to produce anything significant - and I unfortunately was right.  
>  
> But isn't it unfair to put the blame on civil society (or part of it) for this outcome, as you seem to imply? After all, it did not have a say in the process. I suppose in addition that it was itself split on the right thing to do, which would have made it hard to launch a structured and strong campaign. 
>  
> It is a bit the same as the debate on who has weakened the IGF? Is it the western countries that strongly refused to move towards recommendations (in part true - although they provided 100% of its funding)? Is it the more radical developing countries governments who somehow progressively stopped coming as a way to reduce its legitimacy (also true). Or is it the throttling by UN DESA which made it hard to receive funds, did not replace the Chair and maintained just a skeleton of a secretariat that prevented anything more than the organization of the annual even to be done (very much so). 
>  
> In the case of the WSIS+10, the governments in the UNGA - not civil society - are the ones to blame for being unable to agree on anything coherent regarding the mere format to discuss these very important issues. And this does not bode well for any likelihood of progress on substance, hence the legitimate caution by many regarding the role that the UN can play in that regard. An unfortunate self-reinforcing feedback loop. 
>  
> We'll see what happens. 
>  
> Question/proposal
>  
> To end on a positive and more forward-looking note, what would be YOUR hopes for the WSIS+10 Review meeting and resolution? What do you think it can achieve? What could be civil society contribution to the shaping of the agenda and document? Suggestions welcome, as it might be a useful thread on this list - provided we focus on what unites rather than what divides. 
>  
> Best
>  
> Bertrand
>  
> PS: As a matter of clarification, I do not sit on the ICANN Board since the end of 2013 (the Buenos Aires meeting) and therefore have no association with the positions that it has taken since then on the issues at stake here. 
> 
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry
> ("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
> BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE
> Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director
> email bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net
> email bdelachapelle at gmail.com
> twitter @IJurisdiction | @bdelachapelle
> mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> www.internetjurisdiction.net
> <image001.jpg>
>  
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>  
> 
> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:57 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Michael,
>  
> I am not sure I see what you mean below by "working to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"? 
>  
> What surely could undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it will most likely be less open to non-state actors - and civil society in particular - than the WSIS itself 10 years ago. Unless things have changed, and according to the excellent summary by APC: 
>  
> the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the high-level meeting of the General Assembly".
> 
> Bertrand
> 
> What Michael says above relates to how we reached the state of affair described in the cited section from APC's summary.
> 
> I am sure you know how we reached the situation whereby 
> 
> "
> the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the high-level meeting of the General Assembly".  "
> 
> Over many months last year, and the year before, G 77 sought a full fledged WSIS plus 10 summit on the same style as the original WSIS, the extended preparatory meetings and all.... Developed countries, under the customary US leadership, simply refused. Some major NGOs that otherwise follow this process closely were either silent or actually supporting the developed country position in this stand off, and to that extent opposing the position of a full fledged WSIS summit, original WSIS style (which would have then taken place in Geneva, with multistakeholder participation at least at the same level as was in the original WSIS). When this was happening, I raised the issue a few times on these list but got no response. It is really strange in the circumstances to now rue that this has happened. 
> 
> It is a fact that the more authoritarian countries among the G 77 also preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi stakeholder participation than what would have happened in Geneva, even though they wanted it to be summit level meeting. However, G 77 as a group was ready to do it fully original WSIS style, with the leadership for this position taken by the more democratic developing countries. However, this position found no support from civil society and tech groups (ISOC) who otherwise were closely following the process, and there were in fact positions articulated that expressed some kinds of 'fear' about a possible full-fledged summit, with these positions largely aligning with developed country positions. 
> 
> That is what brought us were we are. Lets not escape the responsibility. 
> 
> Further, as I said in my earlier email, the CEO of ICANN - an organisation on whose board both you and Wolfgang sit - openly touted Net Mundial Initiative as something needed to stop governments from doing what they would in default (of NMI)  do through the WSIS and its preparatory process. With this kind of sentiment, publicly expressed, it is clear what ICANN and others of the dominant IG cohort think of the WSIS process....
> 
> Quoting Fadi  on why Net Mundial is needed -  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2
> 
> "We need to make sure that next June (referring to the start of WSIS prep process) we don't have delegation after delegation going to UNGA [the United Nations General Assembly] saying there are no solutions to these issues.
> 
> And then now to express regret about the health of the WSIS process !?
> 
> 
>  
> For sure, modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders are supposed to be put in place, but there is a big question mark in that regard at the moment, isn't it?
>  
> In that context, maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the IGF 2015. Why don't we make it so?
> 
> Yes, that kind of sentiment is and was precisely the problem which led to where we stand today. But then lets not try to have our cake and eat it too ... 
> 
> parminder 
> 
>  
> Best
>  
> Bertrand
> 
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry
> ("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>  
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
> that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the leading
> "civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and UKG
> (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS
> +10 process.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
> Wolfgang"
> Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
> Subject: [governance] Why?
> 
> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list
> is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am
> right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played
> an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to
> look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
> processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why
> people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
> century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send,
> be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the
> CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
> 
> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
> overtaken the discussion.
> 
> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of
> younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
> real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
> energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
> multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
> between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
> (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of
> the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It
> is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this
> oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
>  
>  
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>  
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>  
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>  
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150522/374bf5f0/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/20150522/374bf5f0/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Fri May 22 10:31:42 2015
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 16:31:42 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>
 <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>

Dear Michael and all

 

The "original sin" of WSIS was the decision of UNGA (or UN-ECOSOC?) to entrust the ITU the management/oordination of a "society centered" high level and global event. ITU hasn't got any capacity in societal issues and this was fairly known by all (except the UN HQ ? :-) 

 

Best regards

 

Jean-Louis

 

BTW : Who among our readers will attend the next week WSIS Forum ? I'll be there and T'd be happy to meet some members of the list  

    

 

 

 

 

> Message du 22/05/15 11:13
> De : "Michael Gurstein" 
> A : "'Bertrand de La Chapelle'" , "'parminder'" 

> Copie à : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'Kleinwächter, Wolfgang'" 
> Objet : RE: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
> 
>

My reading of WSIS is that the original intention was to explore how the benefits of this marvellous new technology might be shared globally and particularly through the application of ICTs to the issues/opportunities for economic and social development particularly in Less Developed Countries. The linking of the governance aspects with the developmental/social justice aspects was to ensure that however the Internet was to be “governed” it would be such as to ensure the means for the widest possible dispersal of benefits.

 

There was however a splitting of emphases in WSIS with an ultimate emphasis on “governance” at the expense of “development” as was strongly promoted by the Developed Countries (and those elements of Civil Society which chose to focus on a free speech agenda rather than a social justice agenda). This ensured that the original objectives for “governance” of the Internet would be lost to be replaced initially by essentially technical issues related to “governance” on the one side and ICT for Development initiatives undertaken (and thus doomed) by proceeding without an integration into a broad based and supportive policy framework, on the other.  The failure of the UN (and development agencies and others) to support a role for grassroots users and ICT practitioners in the WSIS process significantly reduced the leverage which the “developmental (and social justice) agenda” might have had and directly contributed to this unfortunate result.

 

The subsequent development of parallel but highly unequal tracks for “governance” and for “development/social justice” has allowed the “development” agenda to slip more or less off the radar for the multilaterals and the bilaterals even while the opportunities and risks for the “development” agenda have been accelerating.  The trivial way in which “development” is addressed at the IGF is one manifestation of this as is the formulaic and ritualistic (and essentially out of touch) way in which the “developmental” side has been dealt with in the various UNESCO and ITU and other UN forums up to and including the WSIS +10 process and the somewhat bizarre focussing on the “Data Revolution” (the “revolution” is of course about a lot more than simply “data”) in the MDG/SDG processes.

 

So to answer your question Bertrand if I had my druthers (and to be a bit more inclusive of what I would like to “unite”)  I would like to see a WSIS +10 which dealt with the reality of ICTs/the Internet in the context of social justice and here I would include not simply LDC’s but the increasing numbers of those being “excluded” in Developed Countries as well—specifically I would have it (and with the active involvement and promotion by CS) address issues of growing ICT/Internet based economic inequality, social exclusion, rural de-stabilization, youth unemployment and precarious work, linguistic and cultural homogenization, ICT induced job destruction, and mass surveillance among others.  I would want to see the WSIS +10 process reintegrate the governance and development/social justice elements to work towards democratic and decentralized global (Internet) governance and policy mechanisms sufficient to address these issues.

 

Mike

 

From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] 
> Sent: May 21, 2015 4:41 PM
> To: parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> Subject: Re: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)

 


Dear Parminder,


 



I can agree with several of the points you make and your description of the sequence of events is quite accurate. Some comments however and a question/proposal in the end that is the most important in my view.



 



Comments



 



I personally would not have been opposed to a full-fledged WSIS review (including potentially a summit level), provided however that it would have implemented additional improvement to the participation scheme achieved ten years ago. 



 



Actually, the preparatory meetings organized by Unesco in 2013 and ITU in 2014 were interesting experiments in terms of more participatory processes and drafting. But it did not seem to have impacted the minds of the New York representatives. 



 



As you rightly point out, in the discussions last year at the UNGA, the positions among governments were roughly:



- on the one hand those who put the emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation and traditionally did not want a heads of state type of event nor a long preparatory process (for both good and bad reasons), who also favored a meeting in Geneva



- on the other hand, as you said, "the more authoritarian countries among the G 77 also preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi stakeholder participation than what would have happened in Geneva, [and] wanted it to be summit level meeting"



 



I have not seen the position of the G77 that you mention and confess I did not follow this very closely. But as could be expected in pure intergovernmental discussions (as is the case in the UNGA) in the absence of a strong desire by all to reach an agreement, this divergence of views was only overcome with the sort of half-baked solution that we are now seeing (bits and pieces of each position). 



 



I do agree that it deprives everyone of an opportunity to have a serious review and that was the initial gist of my post to Michael: I do not expect much from a mere resolution adopted in a two-day meeting in New York with little if any involvement of non-governmental actors in the preparation. At best it will reconduct the IGF with little if any improvements.



 



Having participated for four years in the CSTD exercise every year, I can testify that none of the resolutions that we so painstakingly drafted in late night sessions contained anything more than copy and paste of the favorite sections of the various WSIS documents. I did not expect the intergovernmental discussions in New York about the WSIS+10 to produce anything significant - and I unfortunately was right.  



 



But isn't it unfair to put the blame on civil society (or part of it) for this outcome, as you seem to imply? After all, it did not have a say in the process. I suppose in addition that it was itself split on the right thing to do, which would have made it hard to launch a structured and strong campaign. 



 



It is a bit the same as the debate on who has weakened the IGF? Is it the western countries that strongly refused to move towards recommendations (in part true - although they provided 100% of its funding)? Is it the more radical developing countries governments who somehow progressively stopped coming as a way to reduce its legitimacy (also true). Or is it the throttling by UN DESA which made it hard to receive funds, did not replace the Chair and maintained just a skeleton of a secretariat that prevented anything more than the organization of the annual even to be done (very much so). 



 



In the case of the WSIS+10, the governments in the UNGA - not civil society - are the ones to blame for being unable to agree on anything coherent regarding the mere format to discuss these very important issues. And this does not bode well for any likelihood of progress on substance, hence the legitimate caution by many regarding the role that the UN can play in that regard. An unfortunate self-reinforcing feedback loop. 



 



We'll see what happens. 



 



Question/proposal



 



To end on a positive and more forward-looking note, what would be YOUR hopes for the WSIS+10 Review meeting and resolution? What do you think it can achieve? What could be civil society contribution to the shaping of the agenda and document? Suggestions welcome, as it might be a useful thread on this list - provided we focus on what unites rather than what divides. 



 



Best



 



Bertrand



 



PS: As a matter of clarification, I do not sit on the ICANN Board since the end of 2013 (the Buenos Aires meeting) and therefore have no association with the positions that it has taken since then on the issues at stake here. 



 







 



"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry
> ("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")




 



BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE





Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director





email bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net





email bdelachapelle at gmail.com





twitter @IJurisdiction | @bdelachapelle


 
 



mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32


 
 



www.internetjurisdiction.net




 








 






 


On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, parminder 
wrote:



 


On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:57 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:




Michael,


 



I am not sure I see what you mean below by "working to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"? 



 



What surely could undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it will most likely be less open to non-state actors - and civil society in particular - than the WSIS itself 10 years ago. Unless things have changed, and according to the excellent summary by APC: 



 




the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the high-level meeting of the General Assembly".






> Bertrand
> 
> What Michael says above relates to how we reached the state of affair described in the cited section from APC's summary.
> 
> I am sure you know how we reached the situation whereby 
> 
> "



the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the high-level meeting of the General Assembly".  "



Over many months last year, and the year before, G 77 sought a full fledged WSIS plus 10 summit on the same style as the original WSIS, the extended preparatory meetings and all.... Developed countries, under the customary US leadership, simply refused. Some major NGOs that otherwise follow this process closely were either silent or actually supporting the developed country position in this stand off, and to that extent opposing the position of a full fledged WSIS summit, original WSIS style (which would have then taken place in Geneva, with multistakeholder participation at least at the same level as was in the original WSIS). When this was happening, I raised the issue a few times on these list but got no response. It is really strange in the circumstances to now rue that this has happened. 
> 
> It is a fact that the more authoritarian countries among the G 77 also preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi stakeholder participation than what would have happened in Geneva, even though they wanted it to be summit level meeting. However, G 77 as a group was ready to do it fully original WSIS style, with the leadership for this position taken by the more democratic developing countries. However, this position found no support from civil society and tech groups (ISOC) who otherwise were closely following the process, and there were in fact positions articulated that expressed some kinds of 'fear' about a possible full-fledged summit, with these positions largely aligning with developed country positions. 
> 
> That is what brought us were we are. Lets not escape the responsibility. 
> 
> Further, as I said in my earlier email, the CEO of ICANN - an organisation on whose board both you and Wolfgang sit - openly touted Net Mundial Initiative as something needed to stop governments from doing what they would in default (of NMI)  do through the WSIS and its preparatory process. With this kind of sentiment, publicly expressed, it is clear what ICANN and others of the dominant IG cohort think of the WSIS process....
> 
> Quoting Fadi  on why Net Mundial is needed -  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2
> 
> "We need to make sure that next June (referring to the start of WSIS prep process) we don't have delegation after delegation going to UNGA [the United Nations General Assembly] saying there are no solutions to these issues.
> 
> And then now to express regret about the health of the WSIS process !?
> 
> 
>




 



For sure, modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders are supposed to be put in place, but there is a big question mark in that regard at the moment, isn't it?



 



In that context, maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the IGF 2015. Why don't we make it so? 





> Yes, that kind of sentiment is and was precisely the problem which led to where we stand today. But then lets not try to have our cake and eat it too ... 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 






 



Best



 



Bertrand



 







 



"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry
> ("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")




 


 


 






 


On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein  wrote:


Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
> that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the leading
> "civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and UKG
> (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS
> +10 process.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
> Wolfgang"
> Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org



Subject: [governance] Why?
> 
> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list
> is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am
> right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played
> an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to
> look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
> processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why
> people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
> century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send,
> be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the
> CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
> 
> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
> overtaken the discussion.
> 
> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of
> younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
> real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
> energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
> multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
> between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
> (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of
> the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It
> is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this
> oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
> 
> Wolfgang



 



 



 



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

 




 







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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150522/d5d6a40f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1415 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150522/d5d6a40f/attachment.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 willi.uebelherr at riseup.net  Sat May 23 01:00:04 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 02:00:04 -0300
Subject: [governance] download archive files
In-Reply-To: <555FCF48.8090303@riseup.net>
References: <555FCF48.8090303@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <55600954.4070406@riseup.net>


Dear friends,

i subscribed to this list at the end of january. Because i use the 
Thunderbird mail client, it is easy for me to search the mails offline. 
But for that i need the compressed archive files. Maybe for 1 year.

The most lists use the mailman list server. Then we can directly 
download the monthly automatic generated archives in the mbox format. 
With Sympa i have no experience. My search for archive files was not 
successful.

That's why I have written an inquiry to the admin group. You can read 
this and the answer from Deirdre and Analia. This openness i like it 
very much. Now there are two questions:

1) Is that okay for you, that i download the archive files for the last 
year?

2) If no one speak against it, how i/we can do it? Does anyone have 
experience with archive files in Sympa?

I know from the user manual of Sympa, that they use a special format 
internal. And there exist some tools to convert this format to the mbox 
format. It is a very old pure ascii format.

The same i want to ask the people on bestbit. I will wait for your 
answers. NetMundial 1net.org use the mailman list server.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: download archive files
Datum: Fri, 22 May 2015 23:05:09 -0400
Von: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
An: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>, Analia Aspis 
<analia.aspis at gmail.com>

Dear Willi,
The archives are publicly available for consultation.
Because of the nature of aggregated data, it is generally considered 
good etiquette to make a public request to the list if you wish to 
download them. Downloading them is a rather more complex issue 
technically, for which, anyway, we will need to request some "outside" 
help. Can you deal with the request while we ask for the technical help?
Best wishes
Deirdre and Analia


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: download archive files
Datum: Fri, 22 May 2015 21:52:24 -0300
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
An: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org

Dear friends,

how i can download the archive files before the date of my subscription?

many thanks and greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina




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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat May 23 01:06:10 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 10:36:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] download archive files
In-Reply-To: <55600954.4070406@riseup.net>
References: <555FCF48.8090303@riseup.net> <55600954.4070406@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <C40982FB-DA9D-49D1-AC9D-9AF2B9FAC883@hserus.net>

The archives can be searched and downloaded here.  http://lists.igcaucus.org/lists/arc/governance <http://lists.igcaucus.org/lists/arc/governance>

> On 23-May-2015, at 10:30 am, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear friends,
> 
> i subscribed to this list at the end of january. Because i use the Thunderbird mail client, it is easy for me to search the mails offline. But for that i need the compressed archive files. Maybe for 1 year.
> 
> The most lists use the mailman list server. Then we can directly download the monthly automatic generated archives in the mbox format. With Sympa i have no experience. My search for archive files was not successful.
> 
> That's why I have written an inquiry to the admin group. You can read this and the answer from Deirdre and Analia. This openness i like it very much. Now there are two questions:
> 
> 1) Is that okay for you, that i download the archive files for the last year?
> 
> 2) If no one speak against it, how i/we can do it? Does anyone have experience with archive files in Sympa?
> 
> I know from the user manual of Sympa, that they use a special format internal. And there exist some tools to convert this format to the mbox format. It is a very old pure ascii format.
> 
> The same i want to ask the people on bestbit. I will wait for your answers. NetMundial 1net.org use the mailman list server.
> 
> many greetings, willi
> Cordoba, Argentina
> 
> 
> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> Betreff: Re: download archive files
> Datum: Fri, 22 May 2015 23:05:09 -0400
> Von: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> An: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>, Analia Aspis <analia.aspis at gmail.com>
> 
> Dear Willi,
> The archives are publicly available for consultation.
> Because of the nature of aggregated data, it is generally considered good etiquette to make a public request to the list if you wish to download them. Downloading them is a rather more complex issue technically, for which, anyway, we will need to request some "outside" help. Can you deal with the request while we ask for the technical help?
> Best wishes
> Deirdre and Analia
> 
> 
> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> Betreff: download archive files
> Datum: Fri, 22 May 2015 21:52:24 -0300
> Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
> An: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> 
> Dear friends,
> 
> how i can download the archive files before the date of my subscription?
> 
> many thanks and greetings, willi
> Cordoba, Argentina
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150523/cc13bb80/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  Sat May 23 01:07:04 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 10:37:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] download archive files
In-Reply-To: <55600954.4070406@riseup.net>
References: <555FCF48.8090303@riseup.net> <55600954.4070406@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <D563F527-21D3-4EF3-B72F-1D16545C5F42@hserus.net>

Sorry - http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/ <http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/>

thanks
srs

> On 23-May-2015, at 10:30 am, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear friends,
> 
> i subscribed to this list at the end of january. Because i use the Thunderbird mail client, it is easy for me to search the mails offline. But for that i need the compressed archive files. Maybe for 1 year.
> 
> The most lists use the mailman list server. Then we can directly download the monthly automatic generated archives in the mbox format. With Sympa i have no experience. My search for archive files was not successful.
> 
> That's why I have written an inquiry to the admin group. You can read this and the answer from Deirdre and Analia. This openness i like it very much. Now there are two questions:
> 
> 1) Is that okay for you, that i download the archive files for the last year?
> 
> 2) If no one speak against it, how i/we can do it? Does anyone have experience with archive files in Sympa?
> 
> I know from the user manual of Sympa, that they use a special format internal. And there exist some tools to convert this format to the mbox format. It is a very old pure ascii format.
> 
> The same i want to ask the people on bestbit. I will wait for your answers. NetMundial 1net.org use the mailman list server.
> 
> many greetings, willi
> Cordoba, Argentina
> 
> 
> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> Betreff: Re: download archive files
> Datum: Fri, 22 May 2015 23:05:09 -0400
> Von: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> An: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>, Analia Aspis <analia.aspis at gmail.com>
> 
> Dear Willi,
> The archives are publicly available for consultation.
> Because of the nature of aggregated data, it is generally considered good etiquette to make a public request to the list if you wish to download them. Downloading them is a rather more complex issue technically, for which, anyway, we will need to request some "outside" help. Can you deal with the request while we ask for the technical help?
> Best wishes
> Deirdre and Analia
> 
> 
> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> Betreff: download archive files
> Datum: Fri, 22 May 2015 21:52:24 -0300
> Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
> An: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> 
> Dear friends,
> 
> how i can download the archive files before the date of my subscription?
> 
> many thanks and greetings, willi
> Cordoba, Argentina
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150523/2913901c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat May 23 03:52:24 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 13:22:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net> <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com> <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com> <151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
Message-ID: <556031B8.3040906@itforchange.net>



On Friday 22 May 2015 08:01 PM, jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> Dear Michael and all
>
>  
>
> The "original sin" of WSIS was the decision of UNGA (or UN-ECOSOC?) to
> entrust the ITU the management/oordination of a "society centered"
> high level and global event. ITU hasn't got any capacity in societal
> issues and this was fairly known by all (except the UN HQ ? :-)
>


Of course it was known to everyone. It was the US that insisted it be
the ITU and not UNESCO, which due to its social expertise in info issues
was a natural contender. You can read about this bit of history in Sean
O Siochru's 'Will the real WSIS please stand up?'
http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/66/3-4/203.abstract  .

Why, because US was still cut up with UNESCO over NWICO issues and did
not want WSIS to begin stirring up those fires again - basically, not
bring up issues like communication rights and stuff....

It is a pity how US unleashes such dictatorial decisions on the world
community whose consequneces the world have to suffer for decades
afterwards (Iraq invasion and ISIS for instance). Maybe, that is how
anyone who is powerful will work... The bigger problem however is how US
has been able to ingratiate itself so successfully with the civil
society in the IG area, that the same US that foisted ITU in a
leadership position for information society issues can at will term it
into the villain, in the WCIT Dubai plus way.... And the obedient global
media and global civil society marches in tune to the music of the Pied
Piper..

That reminds me to forward an article on New World Information and
Communication Order and WSIS that I received today.... Fortunately,
counter hegemonic views and the resistance are still not dead and swept
away....

http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/05/opinion-new-world-information-order-internet-and-the-global-south-part-i/



New World Information Order, Internet and the Global South

By Branislav Gosovic


 Branislav Gosovic worked at the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), the South Commission and was Officer-in-Charge at the South Centre in Geneva (1990-2005).

parminder
>
>  
>
> Best regards
>
>  
>
> Jean-Louis
>
>  
>
> BTW : Who among our readers will attend the next week WSIS Forum ?
> I'll be there and T'd be happy to meet some members of the list 
>
>    
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>     > Message du 22/05/15 11:13
>     > De : "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
>     > A : "'Bertrand de La Chapelle'" <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>,
>     "'parminder'" <parminder at itforchange.net>
>     > Copie à : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'Kleinwächter,
>     Wolfgang'" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>     > Objet : RE: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
>     >
>     >
>
>     My reading of WSIS is that the original intention was to explore
>     how the benefits of this marvellous new technology might be shared
>     globally and particularly through the application of ICTs to the
>     issues/opportunities for economic and social development
>     particularly in Less Developed Countries. The linking of the
>     governance aspects with the developmental/social justice aspects
>     was to ensure that however the Internet was to be “governed” it
>     would be such as to ensure the means for the widest possible
>     dispersal of benefits.
>
>      
>
>     There was however a splitting of emphases in WSIS with an ultimate
>     emphasis on “governance” at the expense of “development” as was
>     strongly promoted by the Developed Countries (and those elements
>     of Civil Society which chose to focus on a free speech agenda
>     rather than a social justice agenda). This ensured that the
>     original objectives for “governance” of the Internet would be lost
>     to be replaced initially by essentially technical issues related
>     to “governance” on the one side and ICT for Development
>     initiatives undertaken (and thus doomed) by proceeding without an
>     integration into a broad based and supportive policy framework, on
>     the other.  The failure of the UN (and development agencies and
>     others) to support a role for grassroots users and ICT
>     practitioners in the WSIS process significantly reduced the
>     leverage which the “developmental (and social justice) agenda”
>     might have had and directly contributed to this unfortunate result.
>
>      
>
>     The subsequent development of parallel but highly unequal tracks
>     for “governance” and for “development/social justice” has allowed
>     the “development” agenda to slip more or less off the radar for
>     the multilaterals and the bilaterals even while the opportunities
>     and risks for the “development” agenda have been accelerating.
>      The trivial way in which “development” is addressed at the IGF is
>     one manifestation of this as is the formulaic and ritualistic (and
>     essentially out of touch) way in which the “developmental” side
>     has been dealt with in the various UNESCO and ITU and other UN
>     forums up to and including the WSIS +10 process and the somewhat
>     bizarre focussing on the “Data Revolution” (the “revolution” is of
>     course about a lot more than simply “data”) in the MDG/SDG processes.
>
>      
>
>     So to answer your question Bertrand if I had my druthers (and to
>     be a bit more inclusive of what I would like to “unite”)  I would
>     like to see a WSIS +10 which dealt with the reality of ICTs/the
>     Internet in the context of social justice and here I would include
>     not simply LDC’s but the increasing numbers of those being
>     “excluded” in Developed Countries as well—specifically I would
>     have it (and with the active involvement and promotion by CS)
>     address issues of growing ICT/Internet based economic inequality,
>     social exclusion, rural de-stabilization, youth unemployment and
>     precarious work, linguistic and cultural homogenization, ICT
>     induced job destruction, and mass surveillance among others.  I
>     would want to see the WSIS +10 process reintegrate the governance
>     and development/social justice elements to work towards democratic
>     and decentralized global (Internet) governance and policy
>     mechanisms sufficient to address these issues.
>
>      
>
>     Mike
>
>      
>
>     *From:*Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
>     > *Sent:* May 21, 2015 4:41 PM
>     > *To:* parminder
>     > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein;
>     Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
>     > *Subject:* Re: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
>
>      
>
>     Dear Parminder,
>
>      
>
>     I can agree with several of the points you make and your
>     description of the sequence of events is quite accurate. Some
>     comments however and a question/proposal in the end that is the
>     most important in my view.
>
>      
>
>     *Comments*
>
>      
>
>     I personally would not have been opposed to a full-fledged WSIS
>     review (including potentially a summit level), provided however
>     that it would have implemented additional improvement to the
>     participation scheme achieved ten years ago. 
>
>      
>
>     Actually, the preparatory meetings organized by Unesco in 2013 and
>     ITU in 2014 were interesting experiments in terms of more
>     participatory processes and drafting. But it did not seem to have
>     impacted the minds of the New York representatives. 
>
>      
>
>     As you rightly point out, in the discussions last year at the
>     UNGA, the positions among governments were roughly:
>
>     - on the one hand those who put the emphasis on multi-stakeholder
>     participation and traditionally did not want a heads of state type
>     of event nor a long preparatory process (for both good and bad
>     reasons), who also favored a meeting in Geneva
>
>     - on the other hand, as you said, "the more authoritarian
>     countries among the G 77 also preferred it to move to New York,
>     with much less multi stakeholder participation than what would
>     have happened in Geneva, [and] wanted it to be summit level meeting"
>
>      
>
>     I have not seen the position of the G77 that you mention and
>     confess I did not follow this very closely. But as could be
>     expected in pure intergovernmental discussions (as is the case in
>     the UNGA) in the absence of a strong desire by all to reach an
>     agreement, this divergence of views was only overcome with the
>     sort of half-baked solution that we are now seeing (bits and
>     pieces of each position). 
>
>      
>
>     I do agree that it deprives everyone of an opportunity to have a
>     serious review and that was the initial gist of my post to
>     Michael: I do not expect much from a mere resolution adopted in a
>     two-day meeting in New York with little if any involvement of
>     non-governmental actors in the preparation. At best it will
>     reconduct the IGF with little if any improvements.
>
>      
>
>     Having participated for four years in the CSTD exercise every
>     year, I can testify that none of the resolutions that we so
>     painstakingly drafted in late night sessions contained anything
>     more than copy and paste of the favorite sections of the various
>     WSIS documents. I did not expect the intergovernmental discussions
>     in New York about the WSIS+10 to produce anything significant -
>     and I unfortunately was right.  
>
>      
>
>     But isn't it unfair to put the blame on civil society (or part of
>     it) for this outcome, as you seem to imply? After all, it did not
>     have a say in the process. I suppose in addition that it was
>     itself split on the right thing to do, which would have made it
>     hard to launch a structured and strong campaign. 
>
>      
>
>     It is a bit the same as the debate on who has weakened the IGF? Is
>     it the western countries that strongly refused to move towards
>     recommendations (in part true - although they provided 100% of its
>     funding)? Is it the more radical developing countries governments
>     who somehow progressively stopped coming as a way to reduce its
>     legitimacy (also true). Or is it the throttling by UN DESA which
>     made it hard to receive funds, did not replace the Chair and
>     maintained just a skeleton of a secretariat that prevented
>     anything more than the organization of the annual even to be done
>     (very much so). 
>
>      
>
>     In the case of the WSIS+10, the governments in the UNGA - not
>     civil society - are the ones to blame for being unable to agree on
>     anything coherent regarding the mere format to discuss these very
>     important issues. And this does not bode well for any likelihood
>     of progress on substance, hence the legitimate caution by many
>     regarding the role that the UN can play in that regard. An
>     unfortunate self-reinforcing feedback loop. 
>
>      
>
>     We'll see what happens. 
>
>      
>
>     *Question/proposal*
>
>      
>
>     *To end on a positive and more forward-looking note, what would be
>     YOUR hopes for the WSIS+10 Review meeting and resolution? What do
>     you think it can achieve? What could be civil society contribution
>     to the shaping of the agenda and document? Suggestions welcome, as
>     it might be a useful thread on this list - provided we focus on
>     what unites rather than what divides.* 
>
>      
>
>     Best
>
>      
>
>     Bertrand
>
>      
>
>     *PS*: As a matter of clarification, I do not sit on the ICANN
>     Board since the end of 2013 (the Buenos Aires meeting) and
>     therefore have no association with the positions that it has taken
>     since then on the issues at stake here. 
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     "/Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes/",
>     Antoine de Saint Exupéry
>     > ("/There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans/")
>
>      
>
>     BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE
>
>     Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director
>
>     email bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net
>     <mailto:bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net>
>
>     email bdelachapelle at gmail.com <mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
>
>     twitter @IJurisdiction
>     <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> | @bdelachapelle
>     <https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle>
>
>     	  	 
>
>     mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
>     	  	 
>
>     www.internetjurisdiction.net <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net>
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, parminder
>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>          
>
>         On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:57 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
>             Michael,
>
>              
>
>             I am not sure I see what you mean below by "working to
>             undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"? 
>
>              
>
>             What surely could undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it
>             will most likely be less open to non-state actors - and
>             civil society in particular - than the WSIS itself 10
>             years ago. Unless things have changed, and according to
>             the excellent summary by APC
>             <https://www.apc.org/en/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wsis10-review>: 
>
>              
>
>                 /the review is going to be "a two-day high-level
>                 meeting of the General Assembly". The document will be
>                 prepared by "//an intergovernmental negotiation
>                 process, which will include preparatory meetings,
>                 resulting in an intergovernmentally agreed outcome
>                 document, for adoption at the high-level meeting of
>                 the General Assembly"./
>
>
>         > /Bertrand
>         >
>         > What Michael says above relates to how we reached the state
>         of affair described in the cited section/ from APC's summary.
>         >
>         > I am sure you know how we reached the situation whereby
>         >
>         > "
>
>             /the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting
>             of the General Assembly". The document will be prepared by
>             "//an intergovernmental negotiation process, which will
>             include preparatory meetings, resulting in an
>             intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption
>             at the high-level meeting of the General Assembly".  "/
>
>         /Over many months last year, and the year before, G 77 sought
>         a full fledged WSIS plus 10 summit on the same style as the
>         original WSIS, the extended preparatory meetings and all....
>         Developed countries, under the customary US leadership, simply
>         refused. Some m/ajor NGOs that otherwise follow this process
>         closely were either silent or actually supporting the
>         developed country position in this stand off, and to that
>         extent opposing the position of a full fledged WSIS summit,
>         original WSIS style (which would have then taken place in
>         Geneva, with multistakeholder participation at least at the
>         same level as was in the original WSIS). When this was
>         happening, I raised the issue a few times on these list but
>         got no response. It is really strange in the circumstances to
>         now rue that this has happened.
>         >
>         > It is a fact that the more authoritarian countries among the
>         G 77 also preferred it to move to New York, with much less
>         multi stakeholder participation than what would have happened
>         in Geneva, even though they wanted it to be summit level
>         meeting. */However, G 77 as a group was ready to do it fully
>         original WSIS style/*, with the leadership for this position
>         taken by the more democratic developing countries. However,
>         this position found no support from civil society and tech
>         groups (ISOC) who otherwise were closely following the
>         process, and there were in fact positions articulated that
>         expressed some kinds of 'fear' about a possible full-fledged
>         summit, with these positions largely aligning with developed
>         country positions.
>         >
>         > That is what brought us were we are. Lets not escape the
>         responsibility.
>         >
>         > Further, as I said in my earlier email, the CEO of ICANN -
>         an organisation on whose board both you and Wolfgang sit -
>         openly touted Net Mundial Initiative as something needed to
>         stop governments from doing what they would in default (of
>         NMI)  do through the WSIS and its preparatory process. With
>         this kind of sentiment, publicly expressed, it is clear what
>         ICANN and others of the dominant IG cohort think of the WSIS
>         process....
>         >
>         > Quoting Fadi  on why Net Mundial is needed - 
>         http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2
>         >
>         > "We need to make sure that next June (referring to the start
>         of WSIS prep process) we don't have delegation after
>         delegation going to UNGA [the United Nations General Assembly]
>         saying there are no solutions to these issues.
>         >
>         > And then now to express regret about the health of the WSIS
>         process !?
>         >
>         >
>         >
>
>              
>
>             For sure, modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS
>             stakeholders are supposed to be put in place, but there is
>             a big question mark in that regard at the moment, isn't it?
>
>              
>
>             In that context, maybe the motto should be: the real
>             WSIS+10 is the IGF 2015. Why don't we make it so?
>
>
>         > Yes, that kind of sentiment is and was precisely the problem
>         which led to where we stand today. But then lets not try to
>         have our cake and eat it too ...
>         >
>         > parminder
>         >
>         >
>
>              
>
>             Best
>
>              
>
>             Bertrand
>
>              
>
>              
>
>             "/Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les
>             hommes/", Antoine de Saint Exupéry
>             > ("/There is no greater mission for humans than uniting
>             humans/")
>
>              
>              
>              
>
>              
>
>             On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein
>             <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below
>                 exceedingly odd in
>                 > that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a
>                 number of the leading
>                 > "civil society" organizations have been working
>                 alongside their USG and UKG
>                 > (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the
>                 significance of the WSIS
>                 > +10 process.
>                 >
>                 > M
>                 >
>                 > -----Original Message-----
>                 > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>                 <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>                 > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>                 <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] On
>                 Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
>                 > Wolfgang"
>                 > Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
>                 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>                 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder;
>                 David Cake
>                 > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>                 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; BestBitsList;
>                 Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
>
>                 Subject: [governance] Why?
>                 >
>                 > Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the
>                 discussion on this list
>                 > is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do
>                 not listen" and "I am
>                 > right and you are wrong". Why this civil society
>                 network, which once played
>                 > an important role in policy development in the WSIS
>                 process, is unable to
>                 > look forward where the real challenges are with the
>                 forthcoming WSIS 10+
>                 > processes and concentrate on substance and how to
>                 reach rough consensus? Why
>                 > people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has
>                 told us a quarter of a
>                 > century ago in his robustness princple: "Be
>                 conservative in what you send,
>                 > be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not
>                 remember the language of the
>                 > CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
>                 >
>                 > The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and
>                 old warriors have
>                 > overtaken the discussion.
>                 >
>                 > My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will
>                 encourage a new generation of
>                 > younger civil society people who feel more committed
>                 to the substance of
>                 > real civil society activities and do not waste the
>                 limited resources and
>                 > energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG
>                 proposal for a
>                 > multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance
>                 (2005) was a compromise
>                 > between "governmental leadership" (China) and
>                 private sector leadership
>                 > (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to
>                 become an inclusive part of
>                 > the process. This was a boig achievement of that
>                 time and an opportunity. It
>                 > is now up to the next generation of civil society
>                 activists to build on this
>                 > oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would
>                 be destroyed.
>                 >
>                 > Wolfgang
>
>                  
>
>              
>
>              
>
>             ____________________________________________________________
>
>             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/20150523/fd9123db/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1415 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150523/fd9123db/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Sat May 23 06:34:34 2015
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 10:34:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <556031B8.3040906@itforchange.net>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>
	<CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>
	<151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
	<556031B8.3040906@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_b3wswZ-bG_kmTfrUeVHa6wCPs8io-136OFRxBnDM__g@mail.gmail.com>

On May 23, 2015 7:53 AM, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday 22 May 2015 08:01 PM, jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>
>> Dear Michael and all
>>
>>
>>
>> The "original sin" of WSIS was the decision of UNGA (or UN-ECOSOC?) to
entrust the ITU the management/oordination of a "society centered" high
level and global event. ITU hasn't got any capacity in societal issues and
this was fairly known by all (except the UN HQ ? :-)
>
>
>
> Of course it was known to everyone. It was the US that insisted it be the
ITU and not UNESCO, which due to its social expertise in info issues was a
natural contender. You can read about this bit of history in Sean O
Siochru's 'Will the real WSIS please stand up?'
http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/66/3-4/203.abstract  .
>
> Why, because US was still cut up with UNESCO over NWICO issues and did
not want WSIS to begin stirring up those fires again - basically, not bring
up issues like communication rights and stuff....

Ha! I only vaguely suspected that the whole setup had something to do with
the after-NWICO universe, that the drama that subsequently played out
(around communication rights and then Internet governance) wasn't just an
afterthought, an unforeseen collateral effect. Well, good to know now.

Mawaki
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150523/40948bb2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat May 23 07:17:27 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 13:17:27 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
References:  <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>
 <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>
 <151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
 <556031B8.3040906@itforchange.net>
 <CACTo+v_b3wswZ-bG_kmTfrUeVHa6wCPs8io-136OFRxBnDM__g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi

this history is more complex and goes back to the ITU Kyodo Plenipot (1994) and Jon Postels idea to have an IAHC under (his) control via IANA but with WIPO, INTA and ITU participation (1995). The ITU (under Butler and Pekka Tarjanne)realized in the early 1990s, that the end of UNESCO´s NWICO debate (with the Windhoek Declaration in 1991) created an empty space. The "technical" ITU became surprinsingly a champion for the "Right to Communicate" (RTC). Pekka Tarjanne came to the PTC Conference in Honolulu and addressed the MacBride Round Table in Global Communication in 1993 (alongside with Johan Galtung, Cees Hamelink, Kaarle Nordenstreng and others) to support the RTC. In Kyodo in 1994, ITU became a pioneer by opening the door of an intergovernmental organisation to non-governmental stakeholders, so-called private sector members. Those members got a voice (but no vote) and it was a first step into a direction which is called today "multistakeholder". BTW, the fee for private sector membership was so high that it excluded any NGO, academic  or civil society organisation. 

But while Tarjanne was succesful in opening the door to private sector members (with the support of the USG), he failed to get a green light for a "World Communication Conference". This was watered down in Kyodo (1994)to what later became the "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" (WTPF) which took place since that sporadicly every four or five years (the last one was in Geneva in May 2013). And indeed it was the USG who was behind this watering down. They feared a reopening of the UNESCO-NWICO debate under the ITU umbrella. 

But when Jon Postel and others signed the IAHC new gTLD MoU in May 1997 the constellation was different when ITU had its next Plenipot in Minneapolis in 1998. For the USG to keep the DNS management outside of the UN System was more important than to block another "talking shop". The outcome is known: The IAHC new gTLD MoU was not ratified by the Minneapolis PP. The resolutions 101 and 102 reduced the ITU role in DNS Management drastically. But in another resolution the Minneapolis PP opened the door for a feasability study with regard to a "world conference". This was the start for what later became WSIS. The study recommended in 1999 to have the proposed conference under the UN. The UNGA adopted a resolution in 2001 and did invite the ITU to do the practical work. ITU was happy about the additional functions. It was fighting with budget problems and was looking for an extended mandate and new business. So it worked for the ITU. The ITU (under Utsumi) presented itself as the real "masters of the WSIS game". UNGIS was established only later. The WSIS PrepCom Badges had always the ITU Logo. The main subject for WSIS was bridging the digital divide. But the ITU used the regional PrepComs between PrepCom1 (2002) and PrepCom2 (June 2003) to include Internet Governance into the list of issues with the aim get back what they "lost" in Minneapolis. We know the rest of the story: WGIG, IGF, Enhanced Cooperation, WSIS 10+? 

BTW, four weeks before the Minneapolis conference Jon Postel defended the draft of the ICANN bylaws in the US congress and he distanced himself from the IAHC. And ICANN was formally established ten days after the end of the Minneapolis conference in Cambridge. Postel died in November 1998. ICANN 1 took place in February 1999.
 
Wolfgang


On May 23, 2015 7:53 AM, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday 22 May 2015 08:01 PM, jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>
>> Dear Michael and all
>>
>>
>>
>> The "original sin" of WSIS was the decision of UNGA (or UN-ECOSOC?) to
entrust the ITU the management/oordination of a "society centered" high
level and global event. ITU hasn't got any capacity in societal issues and
this was fairly known by all (except the UN HQ ? :-)
>
>
>
> Of course it was known to everyone. It was the US that insisted it be the
ITU and not UNESCO, which due to its social expertise in info issues was a
natural contender. You can read about this bit of history in Sean O
Siochru's 'Will the real WSIS please stand up?'
http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/66/3-4/203.abstract  .
>
> Why, because US was still cut up with UNESCO over NWICO issues and did
not want WSIS to begin stirring up those fires again - basically, not bring
up issues like communication rights and stuff....

Ha! I only vaguely suspected that the whole setup had something to do with
the after-NWICO universe, that the drama that subsequently played out
(around communication rights and then Internet governance) wasn't just an
afterthought, an unforeseen collateral effect. Well, good to know now.

Mawaki
>


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

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sat May 23 07:48:46 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 07:48:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] Who are we?
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN72eaTJM40uDD4CXXmOnKeMjDzR9V=a00hMOfonbg6mZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Colleagues and friends,

I have been “listening” carefully over the last few days, since Wolfgang's
"Why?". I also deplore the apathy and antagonism that seem to characterise
the IGC now. I had hoped that, left to itself, the list would re-find
balance and harmony for the sharing of ideas. Apparently I was wrong.


It is distressing that both Bestbits and JNC, having each decided that they
preferred to come together with likeminded persons, should both then decide
to use IGC as a battleground. This list (IGC) grew out of an awareness of
diversity of opinion in civil society, and a recognition that there needed
to be a space for objective discussion without rancour of these very
diverse ideas in the hope of reaching some form of consensus, or at least
of understanding one another.


Earlier this week I was present at a meeting locally at which a venerable
and respected NGO (turned 60 last year) was probably killed by people
shouting for democracy. What was needed was that everyone should work
together to clear up a rather dirty mess that had been created. The
shouting meant that most people left. “Demos” is surely about “everyone”.
In the same way the term “multistakeholder” ten years ago in Tunis was a
great victory, gaining entry for civil society. Now it can be seen that it
gave access to other groups as well, some of them powerful enough now to
drown out the voice that civil society had gained.


Words are very powerful, and arguing about them takes a lot of energy, but
meanwhile life goes on. And there are things to be done that need doing.
And for that we need effective participation and discussion. In fact we
need a version of the “multistakeholder” model we keep arguing about, only
this time a “multiperspective” model. And we need to find a way to come
together again, because united we have more power than we seem to realise.


At the Bestbits meeting in Istanbul last year I asked why we seemed to
accept and propagate the external opinion that civil society is powerless,
dependent; why not instead present ourselves as a force to be reckoned
with, which in fact we are. People seemed to agree. In 2007 in Puerto Rico,
at an ISOC meeting held during ICANN 29, when the funding for the newly
established Fellowship programme was questioned by a member of the ICANN
Board, the very quiet voice of an ISOC member from France pointed out that
in fact “we”, the users, supply all of the funding and so the matter is one
of entitlement rather than of charity.


So let’s regroup so that we can present a common front and so that “they’ll
see how beautiful (and powerful) [we] are, and be ashamed” (with apologies
to Langston Hughes)


Deirdre

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150523/863fbb0b/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  Sat May 23 08:40:01 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 14:40:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] Who are we?
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN72eaTJM40uDD4CXXmOnKeMjDzR9V=a00hMOfonbg6mZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMz5XN72eaTJM40uDD4CXXmOnKeMjDzR9V=a00hMOfonbg6mZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150523144001.7e3bf076@quill>

On Sat, 23 May 2015 07:48:46 -0400
Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> It is distressing that both Bestbits and JNC, having each decided
> that they preferred to come together with likeminded persons, should
> both then decide to use IGC as a battleground.

Being a co-founder and co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition (JNC),
the last part of this statement and its implied mischaracterization of
the nature of my postings is in my eyes highly offensive and quite
inappropriate.

I hereby formally request an apology.

> Earlier this week I was present at a meeting locally at which a
> venerable and respected NGO (turned 60 last year) was probably killed
> by people shouting for democracy.
[..]
> So let’s regroup so that we can present a common front and so that
> “they’ll see how beautiful (and powerful) [we] are, and be
> ashamed” (with apologies to Langston Hughes)

Does this mean that those who care about democracy, and who consider it
essential that it must be accepted and respected when people talk about
the need for governance to be truly democratic, will have to go
elsewhere?

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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sat May 23 09:10:22 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 09:10:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] Who are we?
In-Reply-To: <20150523144001.7e3bf076@quill>
References: <CAMz5XN72eaTJM40uDD4CXXmOnKeMjDzR9V=a00hMOfonbg6mZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150523144001.7e3bf076@quill>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Norbert,
Is it better expressed if I say that Bestbits and JNC each appears to use
its own space as a space to agree and the IGC space as a space to disagree?
And that the disagreements are often full of rancour?

Democracy is a word, like multistakeholderism, which can be used for good
purposes and for bad purposes. I say that, with an example, as a statement
of fact not as a judgement on anyone or any institution.

I think civil society has been divided and stands in great danger of being
absolutely ruled.
Let's stop that happening.

Deirdre


On 23 May 2015 at 08:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 May 2015 07:48:46 -0400
> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is distressing that both Bestbits and JNC, having each decided
> > that they preferred to come together with likeminded persons, should
> > both then decide to use IGC as a battleground.
>
> Being a co-founder and co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition (JNC),
> the last part of this statement and its implied mischaracterization of
> the nature of my postings is in my eyes highly offensive and quite
> inappropriate.
>
> I hereby formally request an apology.
>
> > Earlier this week I was present at a meeting locally at which a
> > venerable and respected NGO (turned 60 last year) was probably killed
> > by people shouting for democracy.
> [..]
> > So let’s regroup so that we can present a common front and so that
> > “they’ll see how beautiful (and powerful) [we] are, and be
> > ashamed” (with apologies to Langston Hughes)
>
> Does this mean that those who care about democracy, and who consider it
> essential that it must be accepted and respected when people talk about
> the need for governance to be truly democratic, will have to go
> elsewhere?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150523/07c62c70/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Sat May 23 09:57:04 2015
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 15:57:04 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>
 <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>
 <151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
 <556031B8.3040906@itforchange.net>
 <CACTo+v_b3wswZ-bG_kmTfrUeVHa6wCPs8io-136OFRxBnDM__g@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <1801779023.8994.1432389424118.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16>

Dear all

 

Wolfgang likes to tell us history and this is generally a good point. We need to contextualize the issues we deal with. But sometimes, Wolfgang misses -unwillingly I suppose- some important facts or interpretes them in a rather personal manner. This is the case i.a. with the private sector's membership. Private sector members existed in the ITU in the early XXth century for obvious reasons : in the USA telcos were all private, and so were a lot of international telcos/carriers. But Wolfgang fails to demonstrate the "multistakeholder feature" of the ITU, i.e. the presence of CS members besides the private sector members (there a some 600) with more or less "equal rights" for taking part at "equel footing" in the ITU debates.

 

Whereas only a few CS participants in the early Prepcoms raised the question of ITU's openness to CS, I was the only CS member -on behalf of CSDPTT- who asked strongly for such an openness which IMHO was a precondition for ITU to chair the WSIS process. I didn't see any of the MSH adepts on these lists support my requests even in CS plenaries, not to mention in Intergovernmental meetings when I's given three minutes do advocate this cause ! For the sake of clarity, I'd like to recall the answer of Hamadoun Touré, then Director of the ITU Development Bureau and future SG, to the question of the need for ITU to open itself to CS. "We are open to NGOs, perfectly willing  to work with them. Simply, in our opinion, they needn't being formal sector members for that. What we do refuse is a politicization (sic) of the ITU. We make development (sic) and not policy." (in Annuaire suisse de politique de développement 2003, page 120). In other terms CS = policy, Private sector = development.    

 

Unlike Wolfgang I spent some time inside the ITU during more than twenty years, with over one year at its HQ in Geneva, in field surveys and project coordination/leading (Africa, Albania) and in standardizing Study Groups (SG-15, GAS-7), therefore we may have a differentiated view on some aspects of ITU policy making and capabilities to devise such policies. In this field there were two completely different periods in the ITU history and policy making : before and after deregulation. And Tarjanne was the pivotal figure in this change, strongly supported, as Wolfgang mentions, by the US governmement but also by the UK's one. From that time on the ITU was a neoliberal chapel which zealously applied the Washington Consensus doxa with its questionable Structural Adjustment Plans in its domain, deregulating the telecom sector in DCs without any consideration on its consequencies. This doxa is still prevailing in the WSIS follw-up process. Did you ever see a Dan Schiller or any neocon-critical analyst at WSIS "high level" discussions? 

 

Best

 

Jean-Louis

  

 

 

 

 

> Message du 23/05/15 13:17
> De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Mawaki Chango" , "Parminder" 
, "Internet Governance" 
> Copie à : jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr, "michael gurstein" 
> Objet : AW: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
> 
> Hi
> 
> this history is more complex and goes back to the ITU Kyodo Plenipot (1994) and Jon Postels idea to have an IAHC under (his) control via IANA but with WIPO, INTA and ITU participation (1995). The ITU (under Butler and Pekka Tarjanne)realized in the early 1990s, that the end of UNESCO´s NWICO debate (with the Windhoek Declaration in 1991) created an empty space. The "technical" ITU became surprinsingly a champion for the "Right to Communicate" (RTC). Pekka Tarjanne came to the PTC Conference in Honolulu and addressed the MacBride Round Table in Global Communication in 1993 (alongside with Johan Galtung, Cees Hamelink, Kaarle Nordenstreng and others) to support the RTC. In Kyodo in 1994, ITU became a pioneer by opening the door of an intergovernmental organisation to non-governmental stakeholders, so-called private sector members. Those members got a voice (but no vote) and it was a first step into a direction which is called today "multistakeholder". BTW, the fee for private sector membership was so high that it excluded any NGO, academic or civil society organisation. 
> 
> But while Tarjanne was succesful in opening the door to private sector members (with the support of the USG), he failed to get a green light for a "World Communication Conference". This was watered down in Kyodo (1994)to what later became the "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" (WTPF) which took place since that sporadicly every four or five years (the last one was in Geneva in May 2013). And indeed it was the USG who was behind this watering down. They feared a reopening of the UNESCO-NWICO debate under the ITU umbrella. 
> 
> But when Jon Postel and others signed the IAHC new gTLD MoU in May 1997 the constellation was different when ITU had its next Plenipot in Minneapolis in 1998. For the USG to keep the DNS management outside of the UN System was more important than to block another "talking shop". The outcome is known: The IAHC new gTLD MoU was not ratified by the Minneapolis PP. The resolutions 101 and 102 reduced the ITU role in DNS Management drastically. But in another resolution the Minneapolis PP opened the door for a feasability study with regard to a "world conference". This was the start for what later became WSIS. The study recommended in 1999 to have the proposed conference under the UN. The UNGA adopted a resolution in 2001 and did invite the ITU to do the practical work. ITU was happy about the additional functions. It was fighting with budget problems and was looking for an extended mandate and new business. So it worked for the ITU. The ITU (under Utsumi) presented itself as the real "masters of the WSIS game". UNGIS was established only later. The WSIS PrepCom Badges had always the ITU Logo. The main subject for WSIS was bridging the digital divide. But the ITU used the regional PrepComs between PrepCom1 (2002) and PrepCom2 (June 2003) to include Internet Governance into the list of issues with the aim get back what they "lost" in Minneapolis. We know the rest of the story: WGIG, IGF, Enhanced Cooperation, WSIS 10+? 
> 
> BTW, four weeks before the Minneapolis conference Jon Postel defended the draft of the ICANN bylaws in the US congress and he distanced himself from the IAHC. And ICANN was formally established ten days after the end of the Minneapolis conference in Cambridge. Postel died in November 1998. ICANN 1 took place in February 1999.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> On May 23, 2015 7:53 AM, "parminder" 
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Friday 22 May 2015 08:01 PM, jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Michael and all
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The "original sin" of WSIS was the decision of UNGA (or UN-ECOSOC?) to
> entrust the ITU the management/oordination of a "society centered" high
> level and global event. ITU hasn't got any capacity in societal issues and
> this was fairly known by all (except the UN HQ ? :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course it was known to everyone. It was the US that insisted it be the
> ITU and not UNESCO, which due to its social expertise in info issues was a
> natural contender. You can read about this bit of history in Sean O
> Siochru's 'Will the real WSIS please stand up?'
> http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/66/3-4/203.abstract .
> >
> > Why, because US was still cut up with UNESCO over NWICO issues and did
> not want WSIS to begin stirring up those fires again - basically, not bring
> up issues like communication rights and stuff....
> 
> Ha! I only vaguely suspected that the whole setup had something to do with
> the after-NWICO universe, that the drama that subsequently played out
> (around communication rights and then Internet governance) wasn't just an
> afterthought, an unforeseen collateral effect. Well, good to know now.
> 
> Mawaki
> >
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150523/e9c9d524/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  Sat May 23 10:23:57 2015
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 23:23:57 +0900
Subject: [governance] Who are we?
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMz5XN72eaTJM40uDD4CXXmOnKeMjDzR9V=a00hMOfonbg6mZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150523144001.7e3bf076@quill>
	<CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKhU51RvTN+2wb-rdN6ndFn2PWuXKg+YRQsSSRD0PCYdqA@mail.gmail.com>

Deidre and all,

I fully support and share your concern, suggestions and questions.
Civil society as we know, constitute and perform, should learn, mature and
move.

Accusing may not help. At all.

Izumi
 2015/05/23 22:11 "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>:

> Dear Norbert,
> Is it better expressed if I say that Bestbits and JNC each appears to use
> its own space as a space to agree and the IGC space as a space to disagree?
> And that the disagreements are often full of rancour?
>
> Democracy is a word, like multistakeholderism, which can be used for good
> purposes and for bad purposes. I say that, with an example, as a statement
> of fact not as a judgement on anyone or any institution.
>
> I think civil society has been divided and stands in great danger of being
> absolutely ruled.
> Let's stop that happening.
>
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 23 May 2015 at 08:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 May 2015 07:48:46 -0400
>> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It is distressing that both Bestbits and JNC, having each decided
>> > that they preferred to come together with likeminded persons, should
>> > both then decide to use IGC as a battleground.
>>
>> Being a co-founder and co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition (JNC),
>> the last part of this statement and its implied mischaracterization of
>> the nature of my postings is in my eyes highly offensive and quite
>> inappropriate.
>>
>> I hereby formally request an apology.
>>
>> > Earlier this week I was present at a meeting locally at which a
>> > venerable and respected NGO (turned 60 last year) was probably killed
>> > by people shouting for democracy.
>> [..]
>> > So let’s regroup so that we can present a common front and so that
>> > “they’ll see how beautiful (and powerful) [we] are, and be
>> > ashamed” (with apologies to Langston Hughes)
>>
>> Does this mean that those who care about democracy, and who consider it
>> essential that it must be accepted and respected when people talk about
>> the need for governance to be truly democratic, will have to go
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150523/3dcbc3a5/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 kichango at gmail.com  Sat May 23 11:01:22 2015
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 15:01:22 +0000
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>
	<CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>
	<151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
	<556031B8.3040906@itforchange.net>
	<CACTo+v_b3wswZ-bG_kmTfrUeVHa6wCPs8io-136OFRxBnDM__g@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8-5La21HUS9sHkZ-EC=fRp=HSfyXbSdAWATsGVzGrT5w@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you both for the enlightenment.

/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
On May 23, 2015 11:17 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>
>
The main subject for WSIS was bridging the digital divide. But the ITU used
the regional PrepComs between PrepCom1 (2002) and PrepCom2 (June 2003) to
include Internet Governance into the list of issues with the aim get back
what they "lost" in Minneapolis.

But how did that actually happen, more specifically? I was under the
impression that questions about ICANN (and Internet governance) were first
brought to the fore by some civil society members - notably, members who
were neither from North America nor from Western Europe (at the PrepCom in
Paris?), and who had been involved in ICANN processes prior to WSIS, if you
see what I mean?

Mawaki

P.S. In any case it appears with that we were coming full circle, doesn't
it? Which always makes for nice stories to tell our grand children,
including those who already are as well as the others still to be.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150523/2e73acfe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat May 23 13:12:12 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 19:12:12 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
References:  <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>
 <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>
 <151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
 <556031B8.3040906@itforchange.net>
 <CACTo+v_b3wswZ-bG_kmTfrUeVHa6wCPs8io-136OFRxBnDM__g@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CACTo+v8-5La21HUS9sHkZ-EC=fRp=HSfyXbSdAWATsGVzGrT5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi Mawaki,

as far as I remember the DNS and Internet Governance was not an issue neither at PrepCom 1 (June 2002) nor in the four regional conferences for Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe (May 2002, Bamako; November 2002, Bucharest; January 2003, Tokyo; January 2003, Bávaro). In the final document from the European Prepcom (November 2002) you will find only this para.: "The Information Society is, by nature, a global phenomenon and issues such as privacy protection, consumer trust, management of domain names, facilitation of e-commerce, protection of intellectual property rights, open source solutions etc. should be addressed with the active participation of all stakeholders." In the Asian PrepCom in Tokyo (January 2003)there is this para.: "The transition to the Information Society requires the creation of appropriate and transparent legal, regulatory and policy frameworks at the global, regional and national levels. These frameworks should give due regard to the rights and obligations of all stakeholders in such areas as freedom of expression, privacy, security, management of Internet addresses and domain names, and consumer protection, while also maintaining economic incentives and ensuring trust and confidence for business activities." 

This references did not give IG and the DNS an important key role. But in the final of the five regional PrepComs (Beirut, February 2003) this issue was suddenly raised as a special problem. I personally was not in Beirut but people who attended the meeting told me that it was indeed somebody from civl society who introduced the DNS question as a key question for WSIS, encouraged by an ITU official. This intervention produced the following paragraph in the Beirut Declaration (February 2003, just eleven days before PrepCom2)under the heading "Securing national domain names": "The responsibility for root directories and domain names should rest with a suitable international organization and should take multilingualism into consideration. Countries’ top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment should be the sovereign right of countries. The sovereignty of each nation should be protected and respected. Internet governance should be multilateral, democratic and transparent and should take into account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as those of the civil society." This was rather professional language, prepared obviously by somebody who had a clear strategy. Such language did not appear in the other four regional conferences. With other words, Beirut was the last opportunity to include DNS/IG into the PrepCom2. And indeed, ITU and some governments started to reference the Beirut Declaration and the priority within WSIS shifted slowly from bridging the digital divide towards Internet Governance. 

PrepCom 2 (February 2003) did not really structure the discussion. This was done by the so-called "Intersessional" in Paris (July 2003) when the WSIS plenary created five working groups. WG 5 was Internet Governance and it was unclear whether non-governmental stakeholders as civil society should be given access to the WG meetings. The plenary did say NO, but left it in the hands of the chair of the WG to allow (silent) observers. 

The first meeting of WG 5 was in the basement of the UNESCO building in Paris. Nobody stopped civil society to enter the room (it was 9.00 p.m. in the evening). We were about 40-50 people in the room, 10 non-governmental, mainly civil society and technical community. It was a funny meeting because some governmental representatives argued that the Internet should have the same status as national news agencies, press, radio or television. It was Paul Wilson from APNIC who took the floor and asked whether it would be allowed to explain how IP address allocation is organized. The chair allowed him to speak and his intervention was very applauded because only a small number of governmental people in the room had any idea about Internet protocols, domain names and IP addresses. From this point onwards the WG 5 was open to civil society and we made contribution which were seen as an enrichment of the discussion. 

WG 5 was closed again during PrepCom3 (September 2003) when China asked the chair of WG 5 whether there is consensus among the member states that CS should remain in the room. There was no consensus. We were kicked out of the room. We were waiting outside of the room (in the basement of the Geneva Conference Center). After one hour two governmental representatives from friendly governments came out of the room and told us what was going on inside the room. China was pushing for a take over of the DNS and the IP address allocation by the ITU. Waves got higher and higher and some will remember that IG became the most critical point in the PrepCom 3+ and PrepCom 3++ (October 2003 and November 2003). At the end (December 2003) there was the compromise to establish the WGIG and to give the WGIG a mandate to come back with a "definition". 

In the WGIG we concluded that in the Internet Governance ecosystem we do need neither private sector nor governmental leadership but a distributed multilayer multiplayer mechanism where all stakeholders work hand in hand in their respective roles, sharing decision making. This was the consensus for the multistakeholder model for Internet Governance supported by governments of the 193 UN member states. The WGIG definition became word by word part of the Tunis Agenda. 

Wolfgang



Thank you both for the enlightenment.

/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
On May 23, 2015 11:17 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>
>
The main subject for WSIS was bridging the digital divide. But the ITU used
the regional PrepComs between PrepCom1 (2002) and PrepCom2 (June 2003) to
include Internet Governance into the list of issues with the aim get back
what they "lost" in Minneapolis.

But how did that actually happen, more specifically? I was under the
impression that questions about ICANN (and Internet governance) were first
brought to the fore by some civil society members - notably, members who
were neither from North America nor from Western Europe (at the PrepCom in
Paris?), and who had been involved in ICANN processes prior to WSIS, if you
see what I mean?

Mawaki

P.S. In any case it appears with that we were coming full circle, doesn't
it? Which always makes for nice stories to tell our grand children,
including those who already are as well as the others still to be.


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 riseup.net  Sat May 23 13:14:28 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 14:14:28 -0300
Subject: [governance] Who are we?
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMz5XN72eaTJM40uDD4CXXmOnKeMjDzR9V=a00hMOfonbg6mZQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150523144001.7e3bf076@quill> <CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5560B574.4040909@riseup.net>


Dear Deirdre,

yes, i support very much your intention. But not your way, how you 
practice it.

The objection of Norbert is entitled. I don't know the history of all 
the groups. But what i see and what i learned is, that all people want 
to change the situation, that the most part of the people on our planet 
have no free access to this system, what we give the name "Internet".

But all we know, with a free flow of information, the time for wars on 
our planet is ended. And also the time for poverty and hunger. And we 
all know, that every process where we search for a way of cooperation in 
a diversity space we extend our capacity for the intercontinental and 
intercultural cooperation.

We all have different biography, a very different space of experience. 
Therefore a very diffent thinking of, what we can do and how we can do.

The most problem for me im this groups of open discussion is, that the 
form and interpretation of the form stay in the foreground. And not the 
content. And this I also felt, when I read the text of Norbert and 
Richard. And similar I experienced while reading the Delhi Declaration 
from the JNC.

Maybe, my interpretation is wrong. It is a very subjectiv 
interpretation. We find in many discussion very good reflections, very 
clear cognitions, a high level of inside knowledge. But not clear view 
of, what are our destinations.

All this structures of workgroups, meetings, events and any thing are 
only helpful, if we have a base about, how we want create an open 
interconnection of all people on our planet.

JFC he wrote about. He is very attacked from many people. Why?
He wrote in his answer to Wolfgang:
"The activist power was in the technology and innovation."

This is for me the core. What we have really to define and create? Only 
to be part of "Governance"? Together with all this actors of only 
"Governance"? Then we can fight for "Governance" and never for an open 
system for worldwide communication and transport of information.

Governance have to be an instrument, if we think, that we need it. Also 
Norbert and Richard wrote about at the end:
"Not all aspects of human activity require regulation or any other kind 
of explicit governance action." But why we need governance? This 
question is always the first. And if we find a positive answer, then and 
only then we should act for Governance.

I hope, you and all are not angry with me. And please, excuse my bad 
english.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina


Am 23-May-15 um 10:10 schrieb Deirdre Williams:
> Dear Norbert,
> Is it better expressed if I say that Bestbits and JNC each appears to use
> its own space as a space to agree and the IGC space as a space to disagree?
> And that the disagreements are often full of rancour?
>
> Democracy is a word, like multistakeholderism, which can be used for good
> purposes and for bad purposes. I say that, with an example, as a statement
> of fact not as a judgement on anyone or any institution.
>
> I think civil society has been divided and stands in great danger of being
> absolutely ruled.
> Let's stop that happening.
>
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 23 May 2015 at 08:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 May 2015 07:48:46 -0400
>> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It is distressing that both Bestbits and JNC, having each decided
>>> that they preferred to come together with likeminded persons, should
>>> both then decide to use IGC as a battleground.
>>
>> Being a co-founder and co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition (JNC),
>> the last part of this statement and its implied mischaracterization of
>> the nature of my postings is in my eyes highly offensive and quite
>> inappropriate.
>>
>> I hereby formally request an apology.
>>
>>> Earlier this week I was present at a meeting locally at which a
>>> venerable and respected NGO (turned 60 last year) was probably killed
>>> by people shouting for democracy.
>> [..]
>>> So let’s regroup so that we can present a common front and so that
>>> “they’ll see how beautiful (and powerful) [we] are, and be
>>> ashamed” (with apologies to Langston Hughes)
>>
>> Does this mean that those who care about democracy, and who consider it
>> essential that it must be accepted and respected when people talk about
>> the need for governance to be truly democratic, will have to go
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> 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 compsoftnet at gmail.com  Sat May 23 13:52:42 2015
From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 18:52:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] Who are we?
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMz5XN72eaTJM40uDD4CXXmOnKeMjDzR9V=a00hMOfonbg6mZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150523144001.7e3bf076@quill>
	<CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGK4d09fF=FpAEik-+YBbJSH5tUxMDnkkFwiWNHpUWP+39sTxw@mail.gmail.com>

In agreement with Deirdre. You actually access my thought.

CS need to come together and speak one voice.

Regards
On May 23, 2015 2:11 PM, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Norbert,
> Is it better expressed if I say that Bestbits and JNC each appears to use
> its own space as a space to agree and the IGC space as a space to disagree?
> And that the disagreements are often full of rancour?
>
> Democracy is a word, like multistakeholderism, which can be used for good
> purposes and for bad purposes. I say that, with an example, as a statement
> of fact not as a judgement on anyone or any institution.
>
> I think civil society has been divided and stands in great danger of being
> absolutely ruled.
> Let's stop that happening.
>
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 23 May 2015 at 08:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 May 2015 07:48:46 -0400
>> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It is distressing that both Bestbits and JNC, having each decided
>> > that they preferred to come together with likeminded persons, should
>> > both then decide to use IGC as a battleground.
>>
>> Being a co-founder and co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition (JNC),
>> the last part of this statement and its implied mischaracterization of
>> the nature of my postings is in my eyes highly offensive and quite
>> inappropriate.
>>
>> I hereby formally request an apology.
>>
>> > Earlier this week I was present at a meeting locally at which a
>> > venerable and respected NGO (turned 60 last year) was probably killed
>> > by people shouting for democracy.
>> [..]
>> > So let’s regroup so that we can present a common front and so that
>> > “they’ll see how beautiful (and powerful) [we] are, and be
>> > ashamed” (with apologies to Langston Hughes)
>>
>> Does this mean that those who care about democracy, and who consider it
>> essential that it must be accepted and respected when people talk about
>> the need for governance to be truly democratic, will have to go
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150523/9fd4e930/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  Sat May 23 13:59:34 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 19:59:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] Who are we?
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMz5XN72eaTJM40uDD4CXXmOnKeMjDzR9V=a00hMOfonbg6mZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150523144001.7e3bf076@quill>
	<CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150523195934.01a70794@quill>

On Sat, 23 May 2015 09:10:22 -0400
Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it better expressed if I say that Bestbits and JNC each appears to
> use its own space as a space to agree and the IGC space as a space to
> disagree? And that the disagreements are often full of rancour?

While that wording would have been much less provocative, I still
object to that statement.

It is true that one of my recent postings (I mean the posting which
consisted of a pointer to the "Reflections on making Internet governance
democratic and participative" paper [1]) was an expression of
disagreement with a certain set of viewpoints, and that at least one
prominent Bestbits person holds at least some of the views with which I
have pressed disagreement.
[1] http://bollow.ch/papers/democratic_and_participative.pdf

However, my other recent major posting, of which I include a copy
below, is totally mischaracterized by the implied assertion that I
"use .. the IGC space as a space to disagree".

In regard to the assertion that "the disagreements are often full of
rancour", I find it highly offensive that (whether intentionally or
not) both this wording and the previous wording are supporting
those have made certain ad hominem accusations is response to my two
recent major postings that I have just mentioned.

In my opinion, my postings were completely in line with the IGC's
posting rules, but each of the four responses from other IGC
participants was so full of hostility that those responses were all
in clear violation of IGC's posting rules. It so happens that I am
fully aware of the problem which exists in this specific context of IGC
in relation to enforcement of IGC's posting rules, and therefore I
certainly have no intention to criticize you for not enforcing those
rules.

What I however criticize and object to is the decision of an IGC
co-coordinator to react to the present situation with a posting that in
effect tell one side and only one side to shut up (since it is
specifically the JNC people who generally bring up those topics around
which there are significant disagreements) and which moreover
specifically describes demands for democracy in a very negative light,
which is the specific topic that I have brought up recently.

> Democracy is a word, like multistakeholderism, which can be used for
> good purposes and for bad purposes. I say that, with an example, as a
> statement of fact not as a judgement on anyone or any institution.

Since I have no specific knowledge of the events that you have
described, I have no way to form an opinion on whether in that
situation it was justified to make those demands for democracy and
the implied claims about lack thereof. And I also have no opinion on
whether the word "democracy" was used correctly in that situation.

However I have a very clear opinion on what is the message which the
use of that particular example sends in the context of IGC's present
situation. It is not a message that I find in any way acceptable.

> I think civil society has been divided

That is certainly true, but it is not an acceptable solution to
essentially tell one side in this division to shut up in regard to the
points of disagreement.

> and stands in great danger of being absolutely ruled.

Please clarify this assertion; I'm not clear on what you mean with
this statement in the present context.

> Let's stop that happening.

I'm strongly in favor of the desire to take steps aimed at seeking to
overcome --to the extent possible-- the present division within
Internet Governance focused civil society. In fact one of my two recent
major postings had precisely the objective of making a constructive
suggestion in that direction.

I'm including a copy below.

Greetings,
Norbert


--snip--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Discourse on doubts and concerns about multistakeholderism
	(was Re: Public interest and multi-stakeholder...)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:59:49 +0200

On Thu, 21 May 2015 02:58:14 -0400
Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> May I make a suggestion?
> 
> Perhaps a dedicated list where those interested in the definitions of
> these key terms which have caused so much strife could be created,
> and those interested in that discussion could pursue it there; this
> list could refer all such discussions to the ‘other place’.
> 
> That would give everyone what they want, it seems to me.  

The real problem is not in disagreements about definitions, nor in the
fact that wordsmithing good definitions is difficult.

In my view, the key for really improving the situation would be to
address the sociodynamics which George Sadowsky has referred to by
stating that "in some quarters", doubters of multistakeholderism are
"shunned and excluded". The other side of this coin is that those of us
who are making the experience of getting shunned and excluded in some
quarters, are of course objecting to that process of exclusion, and
looking for opportunities to express our concerns.

IGC's current structures are IMO quite clearly inadequate to this
situation, in the sense that it is IMO not realistic to expect the
needed substantive discourse to take place in a constructive manner
here on this list.

Neither am I aware of any other suitable, currently existing venues for
this.

IMO the only way to really advance beyond unproductive and repetitive
patterns of interactions between proponents and critics of
multistakeholderism is for someone to set up a venue of discourse with
the specific goal of facilitating a constructive discourse on the main
points of disagreement between these two viewpoints.

The objectives of such a discourse should IMO be to figure out:

1. whether there are any fundamental points of disagreement on which a
broadly acceptable consensus is impossible to reach, and if so,
precisely understand what precisely the disagreements and respective
opinions and interests are

2. what are broadly acceptable principles, which will, if/when
they are adopted, solve those aspects on which there is no fundamental
disagreement

Greetings,
Norbert


> > On 21 May 2015, at 02:42, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 20 May 2015 13:20:43 -0400
> > George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> In some quarters, multi-stakeholderism has almost become a
> >> religion, to be accepted on faith, with doubters shunned and
> >> excluded.  IMO this is counterproductive both to understanding the
> >> possibilities of multi-stakeholderism and to employing when it is
> >> the right model to use.  
> > 
> > Well-said. I wholeheartedly agree.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
--snap-----------------------------------------------------------------


> On 23 May 2015 at 08:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 23 May 2015 07:48:46 -0400
> > Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It is distressing that both Bestbits and JNC, having each decided
> > > that they preferred to come together with likeminded persons,
> > > should both then decide to use IGC as a battleground.
> >
> > Being a co-founder and co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition (JNC),
> > the last part of this statement and its implied mischaracterization
> > of the nature of my postings is in my eyes highly offensive and
> > quite inappropriate.
> >
> > I hereby formally request an apology.
> >
> > > Earlier this week I was present at a meeting locally at which a
> > > venerable and respected NGO (turned 60 last year) was probably
> > > killed by people shouting for democracy.
> > [..]
> > > So let’s regroup so that we can present a common front and so that
> > > “they’ll see how beautiful (and powerful) [we] are, and be
> > > ashamed” (with apologies to Langston Hughes)
> >
> > Does this mean that those who care about democracy, and who
> > consider it essential that it must be accepted and respected when
> > people talk about the need for governance to be truly democratic,
> > will have to go elsewhere?
> >
> > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat May 23 14:38:05 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 20:38:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] Who are we?
In-Reply-To: <20150523195934.01a70794@quill>
References: <CAMz5XN72eaTJM40uDD4CXXmOnKeMjDzR9V=a00hMOfonbg6mZQ@mail.gmail.com><20150523144001.7e3bf076@quill><CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com> <20150523195934.01a70794@quill>
Message-ID: <D9BBA5759CCD43FAB31FB61A85D12779@Toshiba>

Picking up on the positive side of this exchange;

Norbert wrote:

"IMO the only way to really advance beyond unproductive and repetitive
patterns of interactions between proponents and critics of
multistakeholderism is for someone to set up a venue of discourse with
the specific goal of facilitating a constructive discourse on the main
points of disagreement between these two viewpoints.

The objectives of such a discourse should IMO be to figure out:

1. whether there are any fundamental points of disagreement on which a
broadly acceptable consensus is impossible to reach, and if so,
precisely understand what precisely the disagreements and respective
opinions and interests are

2. what are broadly acceptable principles, which will, if/when
they are adopted, solve those aspects on which there is no fundamental
disagreement"

If someone would like to set up such a mailing list, I would be happy to 
volunteer to facilitate such a discussion (or co-facilitate with someone 
else).

I agree that the best thing we can do is take this discussion, which seems 
to be at the centre of the disputes which recur here, on to another list in 
a genuine attempt to find where common ground exists and to clearly state 
the areas where fundamental differences exist and may continue to exist.

Ian Peter



-----Original Message----- 
From: Norbert Bollow
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 7:59 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Deirdre Williams
Subject: Re: [governance] Who are we?

On Sat, 23 May 2015 09:10:22 -0400
Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it better expressed if I say that Bestbits and JNC each appears to
> use its own space as a space to agree and the IGC space as a space to
> disagree? And that the disagreements are often full of rancour?

While that wording would have been much less provocative, I still
object to that statement.

It is true that one of my recent postings (I mean the posting which
consisted of a pointer to the "Reflections on making Internet governance
democratic and participative" paper [1]) was an expression of
disagreement with a certain set of viewpoints, and that at least one
prominent Bestbits person holds at least some of the views with which I
have pressed disagreement.
[1] http://bollow.ch/papers/democratic_and_participative.pdf

However, my other recent major posting, of which I include a copy
below, is totally mischaracterized by the implied assertion that I
"use .. the IGC space as a space to disagree".

In regard to the assertion that "the disagreements are often full of
rancour", I find it highly offensive that (whether intentionally or
not) both this wording and the previous wording are supporting
those have made certain ad hominem accusations is response to my two
recent major postings that I have just mentioned.

In my opinion, my postings were completely in line with the IGC's
posting rules, but each of the four responses from other IGC
participants was so full of hostility that those responses were all
in clear violation of IGC's posting rules. It so happens that I am
fully aware of the problem which exists in this specific context of IGC
in relation to enforcement of IGC's posting rules, and therefore I
certainly have no intention to criticize you for not enforcing those
rules.

What I however criticize and object to is the decision of an IGC
co-coordinator to react to the present situation with a posting that in
effect tell one side and only one side to shut up (since it is
specifically the JNC people who generally bring up those topics around
which there are significant disagreements) and which moreover
specifically describes demands for democracy in a very negative light,
which is the specific topic that I have brought up recently.

> Democracy is a word, like multistakeholderism, which can be used for
> good purposes and for bad purposes. I say that, with an example, as a
> statement of fact not as a judgement on anyone or any institution.

Since I have no specific knowledge of the events that you have
described, I have no way to form an opinion on whether in that
situation it was justified to make those demands for democracy and
the implied claims about lack thereof. And I also have no opinion on
whether the word "democracy" was used correctly in that situation.

However I have a very clear opinion on what is the message which the
use of that particular example sends in the context of IGC's present
situation. It is not a message that I find in any way acceptable.

> I think civil society has been divided

That is certainly true, but it is not an acceptable solution to
essentially tell one side in this division to shut up in regard to the
points of disagreement.

> and stands in great danger of being absolutely ruled.

Please clarify this assertion; I'm not clear on what you mean with
this statement in the present context.

> Let's stop that happening.

I'm strongly in favor of the desire to take steps aimed at seeking to
overcome --to the extent possible-- the present division within
Internet Governance focused civil society. In fact one of my two recent
major postings had precisely the objective of making a constructive
suggestion in that direction.

I'm including a copy below.

Greetings,
Norbert


--snip--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Discourse on doubts and concerns about multistakeholderism
(was Re: Public interest and multi-stakeholder...)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:59:49 +0200

On Thu, 21 May 2015 02:58:14 -0400
Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> May I make a suggestion?
>
> Perhaps a dedicated list where those interested in the definitions of
> these key terms which have caused so much strife could be created,
> and those interested in that discussion could pursue it there; this
> list could refer all such discussions to the ‘other place’.
>
> That would give everyone what they want, it seems to me.

The real problem is not in disagreements about definitions, nor in the
fact that wordsmithing good definitions is difficult.

In my view, the key for really improving the situation would be to
address the sociodynamics which George Sadowsky has referred to by
stating that "in some quarters", doubters of multistakeholderism are
"shunned and excluded". The other side of this coin is that those of us
who are making the experience of getting shunned and excluded in some
quarters, are of course objecting to that process of exclusion, and
looking for opportunities to express our concerns.

IGC's current structures are IMO quite clearly inadequate to this
situation, in the sense that it is IMO not realistic to expect the
needed substantive discourse to take place in a constructive manner
here on this list.

Neither am I aware of any other suitable, currently existing venues for
this.

IMO the only way to really advance beyond unproductive and repetitive
patterns of interactions between proponents and critics of
multistakeholderism is for someone to set up a venue of discourse with
the specific goal of facilitating a constructive discourse on the main
points of disagreement between these two viewpoints.

The objectives of such a discourse should IMO be to figure out:

1. whether there are any fundamental points of disagreement on which a
broadly acceptable consensus is impossible to reach, and if so,
precisely understand what precisely the disagreements and respective
opinions and interests are

2. what are broadly acceptable principles, which will, if/when
they are adopted, solve those aspects on which there is no fundamental
disagreement

Greetings,
Norbert


> > On 21 May 2015, at 02:42, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 May 2015 13:20:43 -0400
> > George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In some quarters, multi-stakeholderism has almost become a
> >> religion, to be accepted on faith, with doubters shunned and
> >> excluded.  IMO this is counterproductive both to understanding the
> >> possibilities of multi-stakeholderism and to employing when it is
> >> the right model to use.
> >
> > Well-said. I wholeheartedly agree.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
--snap-----------------------------------------------------------------


> On 23 May 2015 at 08:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 23 May 2015 07:48:46 -0400
> > Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It is distressing that both Bestbits and JNC, having each decided
> > > that they preferred to come together with likeminded persons,
> > > should both then decide to use IGC as a battleground.
> >
> > Being a co-founder and co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition (JNC),
> > the last part of this statement and its implied mischaracterization
> > of the nature of my postings is in my eyes highly offensive and
> > quite inappropriate.
> >
> > I hereby formally request an apology.
> >
> > > Earlier this week I was present at a meeting locally at which a
> > > venerable and respected NGO (turned 60 last year) was probably
> > > killed by people shouting for democracy.
> > [..]
> > > So let’s regroup so that we can present a common front and so that
> > > “they’ll see how beautiful (and powerful) [we] are, and be
> > > ashamed” (with apologies to Langston Hughes)
> >
> > Does this mean that those who care about democracy, and who
> > consider it essential that it must be accepted and respected when
> > people talk about the need for governance to be truly democratic,
> > will have to go elsewhere?
> >
> > 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 kichango at gmail.com  Sat May 23 14:43:45 2015
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 18:43:45 +0000
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>
	<CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>
	<151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
	<556031B8.3040906@itforchange.net>
	<CACTo+v_b3wswZ-bG_kmTfrUeVHa6wCPs8io-136OFRxBnDM__g@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<CACTo+v8-5La21HUS9sHkZ-EC=fRp=HSfyXbSdAWATsGVzGrT5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_1OgFSPnzbo-+7xZzQ9-4t91_svUM3WaGHGn927MpbLg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks a lot, Wolfy, for this memory refreshing piece! Indeed I was
alluding to the July 2003 Intersessional, in Paris. Good to be reminded
that the initial reference in the whole process was introduced in Beirut
February 2003.

As for the final language (which is generally arrived at through a
negotiating process) I have no basis to rule out the possibility that it
might also have been the result of a multi stakeholder process, i.e.
involving participants other than governments/IGOs, unless the latter were
the only ones in the room at Beirut, which I doubt. But then again it would
make sense that whoever first tabled that agenda item had a prepared
language, which might or might not in the process have been improved w.r.t.
the intent being pursued (indeed possibly hardened, depending on where one
is coming from.)

Thanks,

/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
On May 23, 2015 5:12 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Hi Mawaki,
>
> as far as I remember the DNS and Internet Governance was not an issue
> neither at PrepCom 1 (June 2002) nor in the four regional conferences for
> Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe (May 2002, Bamako; November 2002,
> Bucharest; January 2003, Tokyo; January 2003, Bávaro). In the final
> document from the European Prepcom (November 2002) you will find only this
> para.: "The Information Society is, by nature, a global phenomenon and
> issues such as privacy protection, consumer trust, management of domain
> names, facilitation of e-commerce, protection of intellectual property
> rights, open source solutions etc. should be addressed with the active
> participation of all stakeholders." In the Asian PrepCom in Tokyo (January
> 2003)there is this para.: "The transition to the Information Society
> requires the creation of appropriate and transparent legal, regulatory and
> policy frameworks at the global, regional and national levels. These
> frameworks should give due regard to the rights and obligations of all
> stakeholders in such areas as freedom of expression, privacy, security,
> management of Internet addresses and domain names, and consumer protection,
> while also maintaining economic incentives and ensuring trust and
> confidence for business activities."
>
> This references did not give IG and the DNS an important key role. But in
> the final of the five regional PrepComs (Beirut, February 2003) this issue
> was suddenly raised as a special problem. I personally was not in Beirut
> but people who attended the meeting told me that it was indeed somebody
> from civl society who introduced the DNS question as a key question for
> WSIS, encouraged by an ITU official. This intervention produced the
> following paragraph in the Beirut Declaration (February 2003, just eleven
> days before PrepCom2)under the heading "Securing national domain names":
> "The responsibility for root directories and domain names should rest with
> a suitable international organization and should take multilingualism into
> consideration. Countries' top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP)
> address assignment should be the sovereign right of countries. The
> sovereignty of each nation should be protected and respected. Internet
> governance should be multilateral, democratic and transparent and should
> take into account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as
> those of the civil society." This was rather professional language,
> prepared obviously by somebody who had a clear strategy. Such language did
> not appear in the other four regional conferences. With other words, Beirut
> was the last opportunity to include DNS/IG into the PrepCom2. And indeed,
> ITU and some governments started to reference the Beirut Declaration and
> the priority within WSIS shifted slowly from bridging the digital divide
> towards Internet Governance.
>
> PrepCom 2 (February 2003) did not really structure the discussion. This
> was done by the so-called "Intersessional" in Paris (July 2003) when the
> WSIS plenary created five working groups. WG 5 was Internet Governance and
> it was unclear whether non-governmental stakeholders as civil society
> should be given access to the WG meetings. The plenary did say NO, but left
> it in the hands of the chair of the WG to allow (silent) observers.
>
> The first meeting of WG 5 was in the basement of the UNESCO building in
> Paris. Nobody stopped civil society to enter the room (it was 9.00 p.m. in
> the evening). We were about 40-50 people in the room, 10 non-governmental,
> mainly civil society and technical community. It was a funny meeting
> because some governmental representatives argued that the Internet should
> have the same status as national news agencies, press, radio or television.
> It was Paul Wilson from APNIC who took the floor and asked whether it would
> be allowed to explain how IP address allocation is organized. The chair
> allowed him to speak and his intervention was very applauded because only a
> small number of governmental people in the room had any idea about Internet
> protocols, domain names and IP addresses. From this point onwards the WG 5
> was open to civil society and we made contribution which were seen as an
> enrichment of the discussion.
>
> WG 5 was closed again during PrepCom3 (September 2003) when China asked
> the chair of WG 5 whether there is consensus among the member states that
> CS should remain in the room. There was no consensus. We were kicked out of
> the room. We were waiting outside of the room (in the basement of the
> Geneva Conference Center). After one hour two governmental representatives
> from friendly governments came out of the room and told us what was going
> on inside the room. China was pushing for a take over of the DNS and the IP
> address allocation by the ITU. Waves got higher and higher and some will
> remember that IG became the most critical point in the PrepCom 3+ and
> PrepCom 3++ (October 2003 and November 2003). At the end (December 2003)
> there was the compromise to establish the WGIG and to give the WGIG a
> mandate to come back with a "definition".
>
> In the WGIG we concluded that in the Internet Governance ecosystem we do
> need neither private sector nor governmental leadership but a distributed
> multilayer multiplayer mechanism where all stakeholders work hand in hand
> in their respective roles, sharing decision making. This was the consensus
> for the multistakeholder model for Internet Governance supported by
> governments of the 193 UN member states. The WGIG definition became word by
> word part of the Tunis Agenda.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> Thank you both for the enlightenment.
>
> /Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
> On May 23, 2015 11:17 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> The main subject for WSIS was bridging the digital divide. But the ITU used
> the regional PrepComs between PrepCom1 (2002) and PrepCom2 (June 2003) to
> include Internet Governance into the list of issues with the aim get back
> what they "lost" in Minneapolis.
>
> But how did that actually happen, more specifically? I was under the
> impression that questions about ICANN (and Internet governance) were first
> brought to the fore by some civil society members - notably, members who
> were neither from North America nor from Western Europe (at the PrepCom in
> Paris?), and who had been involved in ICANN processes prior to WSIS, if you
> see what I mean?
>
> Mawaki
>
> P.S. In any case it appears with that we were coming full circle, doesn't
> it? Which always makes for nice stories to tell our grand children,
> including those who already are as well as the others still to be.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150523/37070c5d/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 riseup.net  Sat May 23 15:55:54 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 16:55:54 -0300
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net> <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com> <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com> <151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15> <556031B8.3040906@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v_b3wswZ-bG_kmTfrUeVHa6wCPs8io-136OFRxBnDM__g@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACTo+v8-5La21HUS9sHkZ-EC=fRp=HSfyXbSdAWATsGVzGrT5w@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <5560DB4A.50003@riseup.net>


Dear Wolfgang,

many thanks for your explanation.

"It was Paul Wilson from APNIC who took the floor and asked whether it 
would be allowed to explain how IP address allocation is organized. The 
chair allowed him to speak and his intervention was very applauded 
because only a small number of governmental people in the room had any 
idea about Internet protocols, domain names and IP addresses."

"WG 5 was closed again during PrepCom3 (September 2003) when China asked 
the chair of WG 5 whether there is consensus among the member states 
that CS should remain in the room. There was no consensus. We were 
kicked out of the room."

We have the reality, that people want to decide and rule without 
knowledge. And in general, i maintain, that the most people from the 
governments act not in responsibility for the people in his region.

The technical questions are not difficult. And based on a clear vision 
and perspective for a free interconnection between the people worldwide 
over geographical and time distance we can find simple ways to do it.

We in this discussion groups, now for IG, can concentrate our activity 
to clarification our own thinking for proposals for a Internet for all 
people in our world. And it is not important, in what specific 
institutional environment we and our friends act. It is much more 
important, that we create our common perspective and visions.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina


Am 23-May-15 um 14:12 schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
> Hi Mawaki,
>
> as far as I remember the DNS and Internet Governance was not an issue neither at PrepCom 1 (June 2002) nor in the four regional conferences for Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe (May 2002, Bamako; November 2002, Bucharest; January 2003, Tokyo; January 2003, Bávaro). In the final document from the European Prepcom (November 2002) you will find only this para.: "The Information Society is, by nature, a global phenomenon and issues such as privacy protection, consumer trust, management of domain names, facilitation of e-commerce, protection of intellectual property rights, open source solutions etc. should be addressed with the active participation of all stakeholders." In the Asian PrepCom in Tokyo (January 2003)there is this para.: "The transition to the Information Society requires the creation of appropriate and transparent legal, regulatory and policy frameworks at the global, regional and national levels. These frameworks should give due regard to the rights and o!
 bligatio
ns of all stakeholders in such areas as freedom of expression, privacy, security, management of Internet addresses and domain names, and consumer protection, while also maintaining economic incentives and ensuring trust and confidence for business activities."
>
> This references did not give IG and the DNS an important key role. But in the final of the five regional PrepComs (Beirut, February 2003) this issue was suddenly raised as a special problem. I personally was not in Beirut but people who attended the meeting told me that it was indeed somebody from civl society who introduced the DNS question as a key question for WSIS, encouraged by an ITU official. This intervention produced the following paragraph in the Beirut Declaration (February 2003, just eleven days before PrepCom2)under the heading "Securing national domain names": "The responsibility for root directories and domain names should rest with a suitable international organization and should take multilingualism into consideration. Countries’ top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment should be the sovereign right of countries. The sovereignty of each nation should be protected and respected. Internet governance should be multilateral, democ!
 ratic an
d transparent and should take into account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as those of the civil society." This was rather professional language, prepared obviously by somebody who had a clear strategy. Such language did not appear in the other four regional conferences. With other words, Beirut was the last opportunity to include DNS/IG into the PrepCom2. And indeed, ITU and some governments started to reference the Beirut Declaration and the priority within WSIS shifted slowly from bridging the digital divide towards Internet Governance.
>
> PrepCom 2 (February 2003) did not really structure the discussion. This was done by the so-called "Intersessional" in Paris (July 2003) when the WSIS plenary created five working groups. WG 5 was Internet Governance and it was unclear whether non-governmental stakeholders as civil society should be given access to the WG meetings. The plenary did say NO, but left it in the hands of the chair of the WG to allow (silent) observers.
>
> The first meeting of WG 5 was in the basement of the UNESCO building in Paris. Nobody stopped civil society to enter the room (it was 9.00 p.m. in the evening). We were about 40-50 people in the room, 10 non-governmental, mainly civil society and technical community. It was a funny meeting because some governmental representatives argued that the Internet should have the same status as national news agencies, press, radio or television. It was Paul Wilson from APNIC who took the floor and asked whether it would be allowed to explain how IP address allocation is organized. The chair allowed him to speak and his intervention was very applauded because only a small number of governmental people in the room had any idea about Internet protocols, domain names and IP addresses. From this point onwards the WG 5 was open to civil society and we made contribution which were seen as an enrichment of the discussion.
>
> WG 5 was closed again during PrepCom3 (September 2003) when China asked the chair of WG 5 whether there is consensus among the member states that CS should remain in the room. There was no consensus. We were kicked out of the room. We were waiting outside of the room (in the basement of the Geneva Conference Center). After one hour two governmental representatives from friendly governments came out of the room and told us what was going on inside the room. China was pushing for a take over of the DNS and the IP address allocation by the ITU. Waves got higher and higher and some will remember that IG became the most critical point in the PrepCom 3+ and PrepCom 3++ (October 2003 and November 2003). At the end (December 2003) there was the compromise to establish the WGIG and to give the WGIG a mandate to come back with a "definition".
>
> In the WGIG we concluded that in the Internet Governance ecosystem we do need neither private sector nor governmental leadership but a distributed multilayer multiplayer mechanism where all stakeholders work hand in hand in their respective roles, sharing decision making. This was the consensus for the multistakeholder model for Internet Governance supported by governments of the 193 UN member states. The WGIG definition became word by word part of the Tunis Agenda.
>
> Wolfgang
>

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Sat May 23 15:58:49 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 21:58:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Moving forward (was Re: Who are we?)
In-Reply-To: <D9BBA5759CCD43FAB31FB61A85D12779@Toshiba>
References: <CAMz5XN72eaTJM40uDD4CXXmOnKeMjDzR9V=a00hMOfonbg6mZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150523144001.7e3bf076@quill>
	<CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150523195934.01a70794@quill>
	<D9BBA5759CCD43FAB31FB61A85D12779@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <20150523215849.2056bb13@quill>

Thanks a lot, Ian! I highly appreciate your initiative to make this
offer.

I also hereby confirm my willingness to participate in such a discourse
is facilitated by Ian.

Greetings,
Norbert


On Sat, 23 May 2015 20:38:05 +0200
"Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Picking up on the positive side of this exchange;
> 
> Norbert wrote:
> 
> "IMO the only way to really advance beyond unproductive and repetitive
> patterns of interactions between proponents and critics of
> multistakeholderism is for someone to set up a venue of discourse with
> the specific goal of facilitating a constructive discourse on the main
> points of disagreement between these two viewpoints.
> 
> The objectives of such a discourse should IMO be to figure out:
> 
> 1. whether there are any fundamental points of disagreement on which a
> broadly acceptable consensus is impossible to reach, and if so,
> precisely understand what precisely the disagreements and respective
> opinions and interests are
> 
> 2. what are broadly acceptable principles, which will, if/when
> they are adopted, solve those aspects on which there is no fundamental
> disagreement"
> 
> If someone would like to set up such a mailing list, I would be happy
> to volunteer to facilitate such a discussion (or co-facilitate with
> someone else).
> 
> I agree that the best thing we can do is take this discussion, which
> seems to be at the centre of the disputes which recur here, on to
> another list in a genuine attempt to find where common ground exists
> and to clearly state the areas where fundamental differences exist
> and may continue to exist.
> 
> Ian Peter

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

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Sat May 23 16:09:11 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 22:09:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net> <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com> <151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
 <556031B8.3040906@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v_b3wswZ-bG_kmTfrUeVHa6wCPs8io-136OFRxBnDM__g@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CACTo+v8-5La21HUS9sHkZ-EC=fRp=HSfyXbSdAWATsGVzGrT5w@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYph07VJkHtusEvLAmkJxDmRmzFo4ac_Gc338g_3Vo3udw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

AFAIK discusssions on the DNS started in closed meetings of the
"Like-Minded Countries" called by Brazil during early prepcoms or other
Geneva meetings, 2002 ? After 2003 that must have been relayed by the
"Group of 77 and China".

Best. Louis.
- - -

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Hi Mawaki,
>
> as far as I remember the DNS and Internet Governance was not an issue
> neither at PrepCom 1 (June 2002) nor in the four regional conferences for
> Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe (May 2002, Bamako; November 2002,
> Bucharest; January 2003, Tokyo; January 2003, Bávaro). In the final
> document from the European Prepcom (November 2002) you will find only this
> para.: "The Information Society is, by nature, a global phenomenon and
> issues such as privacy protection, consumer trust, management of domain
> names, facilitation of e-commerce, protection of intellectual property
> rights, open source solutions etc. should be addressed with the active
> participation of all stakeholders." In the Asian PrepCom in Tokyo (January
> 2003)there is this para.: "The transition to the Information Society
> requires the creation of appropriate and transparent legal, regulatory and
> policy frameworks at the global, regional and national levels. These
> frameworks should give due regard to the rights and obligations of all
> stakeholders in such areas as freedom of expression, privacy, security,
> management of Internet addresses and domain names, and consumer protection,
> while also maintaining economic incentives and ensuring trust and
> confidence for business activities."
>
> This references did not give IG and the DNS an important key role. But in
> the final of the five regional PrepComs (Beirut, February 2003) this issue
> was suddenly raised as a special problem. I personally was not in Beirut
> but people who attended the meeting told me that it was indeed somebody
> from civl society who introduced the DNS question as a key question for
> WSIS, encouraged by an ITU official. This intervention produced the
> following paragraph in the Beirut Declaration (February 2003, just eleven
> days before PrepCom2)under the heading "Securing national domain names":
> "The responsibility for root directories and domain names should rest with
> a suitable international organization and should take multilingualism into
> consideration. Countries' top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP)
> address assignment should be the sovereign right of countries. The
> sovereignty of each nation should be protected and respected. Internet
> governance should be multilateral, democratic and transparent and should
> take into account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as
> those of the civil society." This was rather professional language,
> prepared obviously by somebody who had a clear strategy. Such language did
> not appear in the other four regional conferences. With other words, Beirut
> was the last opportunity to include DNS/IG into the PrepCom2. And indeed,
> ITU and some governments started to reference the Beirut Declaration and
> the priority within WSIS shifted slowly from bridging the digital divide
> towards Internet Governance.
>
> PrepCom 2 (February 2003) did not really structure the discussion. This
> was done by the so-called "Intersessional" in Paris (July 2003) when the
> WSIS plenary created five working groups. WG 5 was Internet Governance and
> it was unclear whether non-governmental stakeholders as civil society
> should be given access to the WG meetings. The plenary did say NO, but left
> it in the hands of the chair of the WG to allow (silent) observers.
>
> The first meeting of WG 5 was in the basement of the UNESCO building in
> Paris. Nobody stopped civil society to enter the room (it was 9.00 p.m. in
> the evening). We were about 40-50 people in the room, 10 non-governmental,
> mainly civil society and technical community. It was a funny meeting
> because some governmental representatives argued that the Internet should
> have the same status as national news agencies, press, radio or television.
> It was Paul Wilson from APNIC who took the floor and asked whether it would
> be allowed to explain how IP address allocation is organized. The chair
> allowed him to speak and his intervention was very applauded because only a
> small number of governmental people in the room had any idea about Internet
> protocols, domain names and IP addresses. From this point onwards the WG 5
> was open to civil society and we made contribution which were seen as an
> enrichment of the discussion.
>
> WG 5 was closed again during PrepCom3 (September 2003) when China asked
> the chair of WG 5 whether there is consensus among the member states that
> CS should remain in the room. There was no consensus. We were kicked out of
> the room. We were waiting outside of the room (in the basement of the
> Geneva Conference Center). After one hour two governmental representatives
> from friendly governments came out of the room and told us what was going
> on inside the room. China was pushing for a take over of the DNS and the IP
> address allocation by the ITU. Waves got higher and higher and some will
> remember that IG became the most critical point in the PrepCom 3+ and
> PrepCom 3++ (October 2003 and November 2003). At the end (December 2003)
> there was the compromise to establish the WGIG and to give the WGIG a
> mandate to come back with a "definition".
>
> In the WGIG we concluded that in the Internet Governance ecosystem we do
> need neither private sector nor governmental leadership but a distributed
> multilayer multiplayer mechanism where all stakeholders work hand in hand
> in their respective roles, sharing decision making. This was the consensus
> for the multistakeholder model for Internet Governance supported by
> governments of the 193 UN member states. The WGIG definition became word by
> word part of the Tunis Agenda.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> Thank you both for the enlightenment.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150523/3379d8bf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat May 23 19:50:50 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 01:50:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] [discuss] Why?
In-Reply-To: <555CC888.1090600@gmail.com>
References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org>
 <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org>
 <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net>
 <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au>
 <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net>
 <E1YuqV0-0000bl-WE@igcaucus.org>
 <956C43B7-D951-4674-8926-B26D2438A3A6@difference.com.au>
 <555CC888.1090600@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1YwJIr-0001o6-8a@igcaucus.org>

At 19:46 20/05/2015, willi uebelherr wrote:
>As a general observation, your enthusiasm for wordplay, neologisms 
>and new inventive acronyms  (MULTICANN, BUG, MYCANN-Plugs-in, is 
>sometimes witty, sometimes entertaining, sometimes clever, and 
>usually confusing and obuscatory and not helpful to allowing others 
>to understand your argument.

David,
I am travelling right now with reduced access to my mails.

I am afraid I have no particular enthusiasm in neologisms. I only 
have the burden of a reality about which we are lied, lied again and 
always lied in order to make us believe:
* there only the single possible bugged ICANN architectural 
restricted use of the Catenet (catenet! cf. IEN 48 by Vint Cerf)
* along the only Vint Cerf/Bob Kahn TCP/IP technology 1974/1983 
design, engraved in the NSA compatible status-quo stone in1985 for 
the ARPANET catenet (as opposed to any innovation  - having to be 
permitted first by IAB and ICANN)
* in opposition with the second objective of IEN 48, by Vint Cerf, 
i.e. to mimick and join the way we (Tymnet and CCITT) were using and 
concatenating the international catenet since 1977.

We are most probably going to be confronted to a series of press 
stories about so-called "DNS bugs" (eg. the eNom registrar attack). 
This is in order to prepare the politically correct opinion to a DNS 
protection Act, i.e. establishing the US monopoly on the global 
namespace, through ICANN, in order to defeat hackers and protect the 
world from terrorists.

The true reason why is that aside an anglo-saxon I*Core affiinity 
group there is gowing demand for an IETF or LIBRE (free netware 
community) WG to address the architectural BUG in the relations 
between "Ledgers", (i.e. DNS CLASS + Numbering Scheme + IANA + 
Catenet uses documentation/referent network information managers).

This demand will either be addressed by
- an IESG/IAB WG Charter,
- by and IETF non-WG mailing list
- or by a LIBRE/WG.
Decision by the IETF affinity group.

This WG will have to document and experiment (respecting ICANN ICP-3 
restrictions which are good) how multistakeholderism applies to ICANN 
and its multiple information coopetitors in administering the network 
nebula. Otherwise it will be a naming governance by operational 
omnistakeholderism. It will work probably well but will forget TMs, 
the economy of the existing registries and the interests of the 
"ICANN so-called naming industry". This is why there is the MULTICANN need.

This is what the NTIA has asked ICANN to look at, i.e. how ICANN, 
ccTLDs, vanityTLDs, registrars, resellers, etc. will survive in a 
mid-term LIBRE led namespace with DN costing one or two bucks a 
piece, or free when delivered by States, Banks, NGOs/

The accelerating alternative will probably be the "MYCANN-Plugs-in". 
There are several Free Software, national, coporate solution 
variations. The simplest is obviously to manage oneself his/her own 
db.files under Bind, or use the Host file. Some more sophisticated 
solutions are the Chinese plug-in and ISP solutions, or other 
open-roots alternatives. Then (this is my main technical interest) 
there are the virtual netboxes and VGN (i.e. many formes of network 
overlayings). All this might be leading to confusion.

If you do not want to be confused, just read the RFCs. Do not read 
ICANN except ICP-3. Do not read IAB (look at who is the Chair) 
without checking:
- You will soon discover that the technology is designed to support 
billions of local root files and around 35.000 global root files.
- Consider how you will fix the problem, for yourself as a single 
lead user, of this single point of anykind of failure (technical, 
political, military, economilcal; etc. etc.) ICANN is, as a being 
unilaterally global BUG,
- once the (now) reduced trust in the NTIA is gone.


And tell us if you find any other solution than:
- MYCANN-plugs-in (I could use the NAT methaphor to qualify them) and then
- the advisable need to put some order through a MULTICANN RFC (I 
could continue the metaphor with the IPv6).
- return the lead to a sovereign power through the US located PTI 
(even if ICANN is re located in Switzerland) whihc will 
be  accountable to ... the FCC.

Back in 1977.
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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sun May 24 03:31:29 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 13:01:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] Civil society transparency
Message-ID: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net>

Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society
Coordination Group (CSCG) ,

I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project,
somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see
http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .

It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for
all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society
which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability.
The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an
organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners,
and so on....

This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil
society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be
well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no
accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for
partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness,
transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.

The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/
org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its
internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their
oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means
whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.

For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations
work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can
be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria.

Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the
NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also
recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov
movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin
practising what we preach.

I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150524/667acc2c/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 May 24 06:47:55 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 12:47:55 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
References:  <CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <555DD489.7020901@itforchange.net>
 <CAGF_KH-nhGh3RbWWq5AbM+6PchEFdyt9Qm-PA_NS-o67jjp2hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <038401d0946f$75d92470$618b6d50$@gmail.com>
 <151798748.6070.1432305102557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d15>
 <556031B8.3040906@itforchange.net>
 <CACTo+v_b3wswZ-bG_kmTfrUeVHa6wCPs8io-136OFRxBnDM__g@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CACTo+v8-5La21HUS9sHkZ-EC=fRp=HSfyXbSdAWATsGVzGrT5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CA+EjHYph07VJkHtusEvLAmkJxDmRmzFo4ac_Gc338g_3Vo3udw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ED7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi Louis,

here is the official list of PrepComs etc.: http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory/index.html

PrepCom 1 in 2002 was a one week meeting occupied by procedural discussions. No substance. But you are certainly right that there had been numerous private meetings among groups of governments and other stakeholders. I was involved in a meeting in May 2002 in London, organized by WAAC with Sean O`Siochru, Pradip Thomas and others. There had been preparatory meetings, inter alia, by UNESCO, where we pushed for a language in the rule of procedures which would have given civil society an equal status. In Bill Drakes book  I have a chapter of about 40 pages which goes back to the details how CS self-organized within the WSIS process. 

Lessons learned? Little!

Wolfgang


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: pouzin at gmail.com im Auftrag von Louis Pouzin (well)
Gesendet: Sa 23.05.2015 22:09
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: Mawaki Chango; jlfullsack
Betreff: Re: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)
 
Hi,

AFAIK discusssions on the DNS started in closed meetings of the
"Like-Minded Countries" called by Brazil during early prepcoms or other
Geneva meetings, 2002 ? After 2003 that must have been relayed by the
"Group of 77 and China".

Best. Louis.
- - -

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Hi Mawaki,
>
> as far as I remember the DNS and Internet Governance was not an issue
> neither at PrepCom 1 (June 2002) nor in the four regional conferences for
> Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe (May 2002, Bamako; November 2002,
> Bucharest; January 2003, Tokyo; January 2003, Bávaro). In the final
> document from the European Prepcom (November 2002) you will find only this
> para.: "The Information Society is, by nature, a global phenomenon and
> issues such as privacy protection, consumer trust, management of domain
> names, facilitation of e-commerce, protection of intellectual property
> rights, open source solutions etc. should be addressed with the active
> participation of all stakeholders." In the Asian PrepCom in Tokyo (January
> 2003)there is this para.: "The transition to the Information Society
> requires the creation of appropriate and transparent legal, regulatory and
> policy frameworks at the global, regional and national levels. These
> frameworks should give due regard to the rights and obligations of all
> stakeholders in such areas as freedom of expression, privacy, security,
> management of Internet addresses and domain names, and consumer protection,
> while also maintaining economic incentives and ensuring trust and
> confidence for business activities."
>
> This references did not give IG and the DNS an important key role. But in
> the final of the five regional PrepComs (Beirut, February 2003) this issue
> was suddenly raised as a special problem. I personally was not in Beirut
> but people who attended the meeting told me that it was indeed somebody
> from civl society who introduced the DNS question as a key question for
> WSIS, encouraged by an ITU official. This intervention produced the
> following paragraph in the Beirut Declaration (February 2003, just eleven
> days before PrepCom2)under the heading "Securing national domain names":
> "The responsibility for root directories and domain names should rest with
> a suitable international organization and should take multilingualism into
> consideration. Countries' top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP)
> address assignment should be the sovereign right of countries. The
> sovereignty of each nation should be protected and respected. Internet
> governance should be multilateral, democratic and transparent and should
> take into account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as
> those of the civil society." This was rather professional language,
> prepared obviously by somebody who had a clear strategy. Such language did
> not appear in the other four regional conferences. With other words, Beirut
> was the last opportunity to include DNS/IG into the PrepCom2. And indeed,
> ITU and some governments started to reference the Beirut Declaration and
> the priority within WSIS shifted slowly from bridging the digital divide
> towards Internet Governance.
>
> PrepCom 2 (February 2003) did not really structure the discussion. This
> was done by the so-called "Intersessional" in Paris (July 2003) when the
> WSIS plenary created five working groups. WG 5 was Internet Governance and
> it was unclear whether non-governmental stakeholders as civil society
> should be given access to the WG meetings. The plenary did say NO, but left
> it in the hands of the chair of the WG to allow (silent) observers.
>
> The first meeting of WG 5 was in the basement of the UNESCO building in
> Paris. Nobody stopped civil society to enter the room (it was 9.00 p.m. in
> the evening). We were about 40-50 people in the room, 10 non-governmental,
> mainly civil society and technical community. It was a funny meeting
> because some governmental representatives argued that the Internet should
> have the same status as national news agencies, press, radio or television.
> It was Paul Wilson from APNIC who took the floor and asked whether it would
> be allowed to explain how IP address allocation is organized. The chair
> allowed him to speak and his intervention was very applauded because only a
> small number of governmental people in the room had any idea about Internet
> protocols, domain names and IP addresses. From this point onwards the WG 5
> was open to civil society and we made contribution which were seen as an
> enrichment of the discussion.
>
> WG 5 was closed again during PrepCom3 (September 2003) when China asked
> the chair of WG 5 whether there is consensus among the member states that
> CS should remain in the room. There was no consensus. We were kicked out of
> the room. We were waiting outside of the room (in the basement of the
> Geneva Conference Center). After one hour two governmental representatives
> from friendly governments came out of the room and told us what was going
> on inside the room. China was pushing for a take over of the DNS and the IP
> address allocation by the ITU. Waves got higher and higher and some will
> remember that IG became the most critical point in the PrepCom 3+ and
> PrepCom 3++ (October 2003 and November 2003). At the end (December 2003)
> there was the compromise to establish the WGIG and to give the WGIG a
> mandate to come back with a "definition".
>
> In the WGIG we concluded that in the Internet Governance ecosystem we do
> need neither private sector nor governmental leadership but a distributed
> multilayer multiplayer mechanism where all stakeholders work hand in hand
> in their respective roles, sharing decision making. This was the consensus
> for the multistakeholder model for Internet Governance supported by
> governments of the 193 UN member states. The WGIG definition became word by
> word part of the Tunis Agenda.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> Thank you both for the enlightenment.
>


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

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sun May 24 08:59:12 2015
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 14:59:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca>

Parm, all this fuzz just to expel Nick??

--c.a.

sent from a dumbphone

> On 24/05/2015, at 09:31, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) ,
> 
> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .
> 
> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed       by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on.... 
> 
> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple       initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.
> 
> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a       group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.
> 
> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an       organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria.
> 
> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach. 
> 
> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..
> 
> parminder 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150524/47b24355/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 May 24 09:41:21 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 15:41:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <3F2340E4-CAA6-43C2-B9C4-464531F862AA@consensus.pro>

Dear Carlos,

If the objective is to get rid of me, then perhaps it is useful to know:

* I do not currently receive *any* private-sector funding for IDEA's activities - nor have I in 2015.
* IDEA's mission is not to represent the private sector, as even the most basic reading of the 'about' page clearly states.
* IDEA's Advisory Council has a majority of people who are not even *from* the private sector.
* Any number of NGOs on this list receive heads-up messages about events that only someone who lives in works in international Geneva would ever know about - and few even then - not because they pay for it but because I believe they should know about it to more effectively represent the civil society interest.
* Last, but not least, irrespective of the above, none of us are defined by our jobs. We all are people first and we should IMO always approach life first as people with an obligation to our fellow man and woman and the common weal, and everything else second. If someone here who is actually getting paid by the private sector is intervening here constructively in their off time as a private person they ought to be welcomed and encouraged. IMO. Frankly this list could use a whole lot more welcoming and encouraging than it presently has. Again IMO.

So if the objective is to get rid of me, then you're getting rid of someone simply because one vocal member of the list doesn't like my agreeing with what someone else on the list said and not in any way.

Perhaps we might all now move on to actual substance? Even if it is setting up a transparency project, separate from a connection with me personally. Such a project isn't a bad idea, as long as it is administered in the interests of transparency overall and not as a vehicle for silencing people not for who they are or what they have to say but because their views are inconvenient at one time or another.

Regards, Nick

On 24 May 2015, at 14:59, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Parm, all this fuzz just to expel Nick??
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> sent from a dumbphone
> 
> On 24/05/2015, at 09:31, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) ,
>> 
>> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .
>> 
>> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on.... 
>> 
>> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.
>> 
>> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.
>> 
>> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria.
>> 
>> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach. 
>> 
>> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..
>> 
>> parminder 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150524/8d569d2a/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/20150524/8d569d2a/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 admin at bango.org.bb  Sun May 24 10:31:25 2015
From: admin at bango.org.bb (BANGO)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 10:31:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAOaZQePDLxNOla41xQ946THCgAAAEAAAAChIxvC/m/ZGpULY3PVC1G8BAAAAAA==@bango.org.bb>

Civil Society Transparency? Must be careful that you are not setting up some mechanism that leads to elitism and that would pass itself off as representing civil society, but which will fail to represent the grassroots especially. What would be the motive for NGOs, especially grassroots, to comply with a transparency register?

 

Personally, I am more concerned with those who seek to set up power bases. Civil society is not about power bases because power bases work against civil society. We must seek to understand the concept of civil society. It is not homogenous, it is about diversity.

 

ROK

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:59 AM
To: parminder
Cc: Ian Peter; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org; A general information sharing space for the APC Community.
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency

 

Parm, all this fuzz just to expel Nick??

 

--c.a.

sent from a dumbphone


On 24/05/2015, at 09:31, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> > wrote:

Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) ,

I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .

It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on.... 

This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.

The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.

For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria.

Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach. 

I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..

parminder 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150524/ac706313/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sun May 24 10:35:18 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 10:35:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAOaZQePDLxNOla41xQ946THCgAAAEAAAAChIxvC/m/ZGpULY3PVC1G8BAAAAAA==@bango.org.bb>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net>
 <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca>
 <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAOaZQePDLxNOla41xQ946THCgAAAEAAAAChIxvC/m/ZGpULY3PVC1G8BAAAAAA==@bango.org.bb>
Message-ID: <20150524143518.5300307.44338.13331@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150524/e3685c48/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 May 24 12:49:58 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 22:19:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <55620136.5070903@itforchange.net>



On Sunday 24 May 2015 06:29 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Parm, all this fuzz just to expel Nick??

Carlos, I am not sure where you read an expelling clause. The primary
purpose of neither the EU transparency register nor my proposal is of
*judging* organisational mission, funding etc, but to bring these
informations upfront and make them public, which by any canon of
democratic public life they should be .

I am sorry if all this looks fuzz to you, but transparency of public
actors including of civil society actors  is regular civil society stuff
for the civil society that I know and interact with.

Maybe you can relax and try to see this proposal on its merit without
thinking about who is proposing it and what you may be jumping to
consider as its 'real purpose'. Perhaps it may put your mind to rest to
know that I have made such a proposal a few times in my IGC postings,
and also have been in talk with a major south based civil society IG
group for over an year now about it.

So, may I ask you, putting Nick out of your mind, what do you think of
this proposal as an important civil society person/ org in this space.
Thanks.

parminder
> --c.a.
>
> sent from a dumbphone
>
> On 24/05/2015, at 09:31, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society
>> Coordination Group (CSCG) ,
>>
>> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project,
>> somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see
>> http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .
>>
>> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one
>> for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil
>> society which should set the highest example of transparency and
>> accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on
>> objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its
>> funding, partners, and so on....
>>
>> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil
>> society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would
>> be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there
>> is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed
>> for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness,
>> transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.
>>
>> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/
>> org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how
>> its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with
>> their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any
>> means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.
>>
>> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an
>> organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such
>> organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of
>> criteria.
>>
>> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the
>> NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also
>> recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the
>> OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we
>> begin practising what we preach.
>>
>> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..
>>
>> parminder
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150524/97a836dc/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 May 24 13:13:11 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 22:43:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <3F2340E4-CAA6-43C2-B9C4-464531F862AA@consensus.pro>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca> <3F2340E4-CAA6-43C2-B9C4-464531F862AA@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <556206A7.5090002@itforchange.net>

Nick

Thanks for your support to a possible civil society transparency
project. As for your desire that it has overall good interests in mind
you'd have noted that I have made the proposal to Civil Society
Coordination Group ( CSCG) to run it, but if you have a better
administrative structure in mind lets discuss it. I am happy to help
raise funds because civil society transparency is relatively easier to
raise funds for than many other areas.

As for your arguments why you should not be gotten rid of, you are
making offerings to a strawman, a rather unfruitful exercise normally.

parminder

On Sunday 24 May 2015 07:11 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
>
> If the objective is to get rid of me, then perhaps it is useful to know:
>
> * I do not currently receive *any* private-sector funding for IDEA's
> activities - nor have I in 2015.
> * IDEA's mission is not to represent the private sector, as even the
> most basic reading of the 'about' page clearly states.
> * IDEA's Advisory Council
> <http://www.internet-ecosystem.org/advisory-council/> has a majority
> of people who are not even *from* the private sector.
> * Any number of NGOs on this list receive heads-up messages about
> events that only someone who lives in works in international Geneva
> would ever know about - and few even then - not because they pay for
> it but because I believe they should know about it to more effectively
> represent the civil society interest.
> * Last, but not least, irrespective of the above, none of us are
> defined by our jobs. We all are people first and we should IMO always
> approach life first as people with an obligation to our fellow man and
> woman and the common weal, and everything else second. If someone here
> who is actually getting paid by the private sector is intervening here
> constructively in their off time as a private person they ought to be
> welcomed and encouraged. IMO. Frankly this list could use a whole lot
> more welcoming and encouraging than it presently has. Again IMO.
>
> So if the objective is to get rid of me, then you're getting rid of
> someone simply because one vocal member of the list doesn't like my
> agreeing with what someone else on the list said and not in any way.
>
> Perhaps we might all now move on to actual substance? Even if it is
> setting up a transparency project, separate from a connection with me
> personally. Such a project isn't a bad idea, as long as it is
> administered in the interests of transparency overall and not as a
> vehicle for silencing people not for who they are or what they have to
> say but because their views are inconvenient at one time or another.
>
> Regards, Nick
>
> On 24 May 2015, at 14:59, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>
>> Parm, all this fuzz just to expel Nick??
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> sent from a dumbphone
>>
>> On 24/05/2015, at 09:31, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society
>>> Coordination Group (CSCG) ,
>>>
>>> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project,
>>> somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see
>>> http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .
>>>
>>> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one
>>> for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil
>>> society which should set the highest example of transparency and
>>> accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on
>>> objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any,
>>> its funding, partners, and so on....
>>>
>>> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil
>>> society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG
>>> would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that
>>> there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being
>>> employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for
>>> openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.
>>>
>>> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a
>>> group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether
>>> and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by
>>> with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have
>>> any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.
>>>
>>> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an
>>> organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such
>>> organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of
>>> criteria.
>>>
>>> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the
>>> NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also
>>> recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the
>>> OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time
>>> we begin practising what we preach.
>>>
>>> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..
>>>
>>> parminder
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150524/df4c47ef/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 ca at cafonso.ca  Sun May 24 13:28:43 2015
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 19:28:43 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <3F2340E4-CAA6-43C2-B9C4-464531F862AA@consensus.pro>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca> <3F2340E4-CAA6-43C2-B9C4-464531F862AA@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <55620A4B.7060206@cafonso.ca>

I do hope you stay with us.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 24-05-15 15:41, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
>
> If the objective is to get rid of me, then perhaps it is useful to know:
>
> * I do not currently receive *any* private-sector funding for IDEA's activities - nor have I in 2015.
> * IDEA's mission is not to represent the private sector, as even the most basic reading of the 'about' page clearly states.
> * IDEA's Advisory Council has a majority of people who are not even *from* the private sector.
> * Any number of NGOs on this list receive heads-up messages about events that only someone who lives in works in international Geneva would ever know about - and few even then - not because they pay for it but because I believe they should know about it to more effectively represent the civil society interest.
> * Last, but not least, irrespective of the above, none of us are defined by our jobs. We all are people first and we should IMO always approach life first as people with an obligation to our fellow man and woman and the common weal, and everything else second. If someone here who is actually getting paid by the private sector is intervening here constructively in their off time as a private person they ought to be welcomed and encouraged. IMO. Frankly this list could use a whole lot more welcoming and encouraging than it presently has. Again IMO.
>
> So if the objective is to get rid of me, then you're getting rid of someone simply because one vocal member of the list doesn't like my agreeing with what someone else on the list said and not in any way.
>
> Perhaps we might all now move on to actual substance? Even if it is setting up a transparency project, separate from a connection with me personally. Such a project isn't a bad idea, as long as it is administered in the interests of transparency overall and not as a vehicle for silencing people not for who they are or what they have to say but because their views are inconvenient at one time or another.
>
> Regards, Nick
>
> On 24 May 2015, at 14:59, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>> Parm, all this fuzz just to expel Nick??
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> sent from a dumbphone
>>
>> On 24/05/2015, at 09:31, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) ,
>>>
>>> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .
>>>
>>> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on....
>>>
>>> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.
>>>
>>> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.
>>>
>>> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria.
>>>
>>> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach.
>>>
>>> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..
>>>
>>> parminder
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 ca at cafonso.ca  Sun May 24 17:19:49 2015
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 23:19:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <3F2340E4-CAA6-43C2-B9C4-464531F862AA@consensus.pro>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca> <3F2340E4-CAA6-43C2-B9C4-464531F862AA@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <55624075.3040503@cafonso.ca>

I do hope you stay with us.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 24-05-15 15:41, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
>
> If the objective is to get rid of me, then perhaps it is useful to know:
>
> * I do not currently receive *any* private-sector funding for IDEA's activities - nor have I in 2015.
> * IDEA's mission is not to represent the private sector, as even the most basic reading of the 'about' page clearly states.
> * IDEA's Advisory Council has a majority of people who are not even *from* the private sector.
> * Any number of NGOs on this list receive heads-up messages about events that only someone who lives in works in international Geneva would ever know about - and few even then - not because they pay for it but because I believe they should know about it to more effectively represent the civil society interest.
> * Last, but not least, irrespective of the above, none of us are defined by our jobs. We all are people first and we should IMO always approach life first as people with an obligation to our fellow man and woman and the common weal, and everything else second. If someone here who is actually getting paid by the private sector is intervening here constructively in their off time as a private person they ought to be welcomed and encouraged. IMO. Frankly this list could use a whole lot more welcoming and encouraging than it presently has. Again IMO.
>
> So if the objective is to get rid of me, then you're getting rid of someone simply because one vocal member of the list doesn't like my agreeing with what someone else on the list said and not in any way.
>
> Perhaps we might all now move on to actual substance? Even if it is setting up a transparency project, separate from a connection with me personally. Such a project isn't a bad idea, as long as it is administered in the interests of transparency overall and not as a vehicle for silencing people not for who they are or what they have to say but because their views are inconvenient at one time or another.
>
> Regards, Nick
>
> On 24 May 2015, at 14:59, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>> Parm, all this fuzz just to expel Nick??
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> sent from a dumbphone
>>
>> On 24/05/2015, at 09:31, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) ,
>>>
>>> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .
>>>
>>> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on....
>>>
>>> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.
>>>
>>> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.
>>>
>>> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria.
>>>
>>> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach.
>>>
>>> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..
>>>
>>> parminder
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Sun May 24 18:21:45 2015
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 00:21:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <55624075.3040503@cafonso.ca>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca> <3F2340E4-CAA6-43C2-B9C4-464531F862AA@consensus.pro> <55624075.3040503@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <3EADF704-7420-4CCF-B78B-84D912F97F9D@gmail.com>

Let us know when we should cry!!!!!!!!

Going after any asymmetry (in any society or community) is a difficult task and it takes some courage to challenge it, and to stand in front of the dominant storytelling would the latter be provided by any 'Uncle Wolfy', 'Nicky Biz', 'Brother Carlos' or any one else. Their opinions are indeed respectable, this is not my concern. But defending the dominants (for a CS) brings inevitably a sense of betrayal (sorry about that). And selling us assumptions, instead of facts, can even be more toxic. Did Postel thought that ICANN was a good deal? Had he any choice, when he was able to realize that the US government would do anything to oppose any international solution to what was obviously an asymmetric concern that Postel had foreseen long before he saw Ira Magaziner, with Vint Cerf's help, trying to derail Internet governance by Academics toward USG and US corporations? So we should be very careful again and again, always trying to assume who is serving his master, or his people - I am talking of someone pretending to be a CS, and basically defending people. At least that seems to be the level-zero of any CS activism.

Multistakeholderism is often opposed to multilateralism, when it should be reminded that multi-stakeholderism is opposing universalism. MSism has not invented the ability to invite different parties or stakeholders to a consultation or to a debate. That we know how to do it for quite some time. Interestingly, MSism has worked relatively well to keep Civil society fragmented and unable to unite (the opposite has no evidence in terms of reality). I think this is something that goes beyond the so-called current war to define terms. MSism does not exist as an ideology. It is a poor salsa, more the kind of ketch-up that kills other flavors. It is a stratagem preventing a democratic debate, and preventing anyone in CS to move the collective bargain. MSism is a perfect way to stay submitted to the powerful. More toxically, it tends to provide to corporations even more power in front of nations. Who in these different threads really wants a corporation to have an equal footing decision making role to a nation? I don't. Those happy with that should leave the CS camp. So let's forget MSism. It leads nowhere simply because it is empty of political and philosophical substance. Democracy is something else. Democracy, as imperfect it is, is still an exercise that delivers results with a rather good legitimacy/public interest/private/interest ratio.

The lists are in danger for being unable to unite as a CS in front of governments (un-united by definition) and corporations (they are so efficient to create unlawful entente). Maybe this CS unability is part of an expected result. Of course, no one doubts that the world of IG would speak with one voice, would the JNCs and a few others not be able to expressed themselves. Of course, such a nice single voicing would allow more little arrangements among friends, granting a seat or some money here and there at ICANN, ISOC, or any convenient board. 

So obviously Nick - as anyone - is most welcome to stay in. What would be more interesting  - and I agree with Deirdre in terms of objective - is to see how we can get CS bring back trust in its ranks. I am not sure if Anriette's latest comments were any kind of official statement by APC still I doubt those to be what we expect from a true CS leader (her vision of MSism from local to global levels is highly questionable). Maybe she should invest more time to reflect on JFC's and see how his views are clearly challenging the absence of progress when it comes to CS trying to shake the IG house. 

JC
PS: Carlos, I have fraternal tissues if you need them


- 
Le 24 mai 2015 à 23:19, Carlos Afonso a écrit :

> I do hope you stay with us.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 24-05-15 15:41, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>> Dear Carlos,
>> 
>> If the objective is to get rid of me, then perhaps it is useful to know:
>> 
>> * I do not currently receive *any* private-sector funding for IDEA's activities - nor have I in 2015.
>> * IDEA's mission is not to represent the private sector, as even the most basic reading of the 'about' page clearly states.
>> * IDEA's Advisory Council has a majority of people who are not even *from* the private sector.
>> * Any number of NGOs on this list receive heads-up messages about events that only someone who lives in works in international Geneva would ever know about - and few even then - not because they pay for it but because I believe they should know about it to more effectively represent the civil society interest.
>> * Last, but not least, irrespective of the above, none of us are defined by our jobs. We all are people first and we should IMO always approach life first as people with an obligation to our fellow man and woman and the common weal, and everything else second. If someone here who is actually getting paid by the private sector is intervening here constructively in their off time as a private person they ought to be welcomed and encouraged. IMO. Frankly this list could use a whole lot more welcoming and encouraging than it presently has. Again IMO.
>> 
>> So if the objective is to get rid of me, then you're getting rid of someone simply because one vocal member of the list doesn't like my agreeing with what someone else on the list said and not in any way.
>> 
>> Perhaps we might all now move on to actual substance? Even if it is setting up a transparency project, separate from a connection with me personally. Such a project isn't a bad idea, as long as it is administered in the interests of transparency overall and not as a vehicle for silencing people not for who they are or what they have to say but because their views are inconvenient at one time or another.
>> 
>> Regards, Nick
>> 
>> On 24 May 2015, at 14:59, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> Parm, all this fuzz just to expel Nick??
>>> 
>>> --c.a.
>>> 
>>> sent from a dumbphone
>>> 
>>> On 24/05/2015, at 09:31, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) ,
>>>> 
>>>> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .
>>>> 
>>>> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on....
>>>> 
>>>> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.
>>>> 
>>>> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria.
>>>> 
>>>> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach.
>>>> 
>>>> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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/20150525/fede00b6/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 May 25 02:57:42 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 14:57:42 +0800
Subject: [governance] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CF50E28585184AFAA4BBC8D7F48AB245@Toshiba>

Hi Parminder,

Two issues in response to your suggestion.

Firstly, the suggestion that CSCG do this. CSCG consists of five people who are pretty busy co-ordinating coalitions of CS organisations (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) and myself as an independent chair. The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside organisations.  It has no staff, no funding, not even a formal charter.  In order to address some of the issues it faces I have suggested from time to time  that the membership be expanded to include say 3 more respected civil society people who are not formal representatives of coalitions of CS organisations. The last time I suggested this it was met with some strongly worded negative responses from JNC and I have not heard of any change of position on this. So for these reasons I don’t think CSCG is the right organisation to take on this task. Perhaps IGC?

Secondly, I wonder how it would work in CS which has so many people who are basically acting as individuals rather than representatives of organisations. Many if not most of us also have non CS affiliations (eg membership of ISOC, business or governmental employees if we are cs volunteers, academic postings etc) so the “pure” CS rep is probably a bit hard to find. I am not sure what we would gain by having a register of all our multiple affiliations which would need regular updating to be of any use.  I think we need to ensure our major coalitions (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) act transparently, and by and large I think they do. But I am not sure of the value of extending this to what is probably tens of thousands of members or organisations affiliated with these larger groups. 

Over to others to discuss. I am not opposed to the suggestion that something be done in this area,  but I think we need to refine any such idea somewhat, and if the aim is somehow to enhance CS credibility and transparency in this space, perhaps we should also discuss what other measures might also assist this.

Ian Peter

From: parminder 
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:31 PM
To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; BestBitsList ; mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing space for the APC Community. 
Subject: [governance] Civil society transparency

Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) ,

I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .

It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on.... 

This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.

The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.

For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria.

Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach. 

I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..

parminder 



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your 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/20150525/dd9ca20c/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 y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu  Mon May 25 03:01:13 2015
From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 10:01:13 +0300
Subject: [governance] Quality of Internet services_end users role_ WSIS
 forum thematic workshop
In-Reply-To: <20150523215849.2056bb13@quill>
References: <CAMz5XN72eaTJM40uDD4CXXmOnKeMjDzR9V=a00hMOfonbg6mZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150523144001.7e3bf076@quill>
 <CAMz5XN6nhYayu3Kin3sAHk56oUCqDXGdcNqQ4Jok7AGwb1iDOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150523195934.01a70794@quill> <D9BBA5759CCD43FAB31FB61A85D12779@Toshiba>
 <20150523215849.2056bb13@quill>
Message-ID: <bcb400d041553bac5c35e2c54b46513d@againstcybercrime.eu>


Dear all,

For those interested in the topic of quality of Internet services and 
the end users role, join us at the WSIS workshop,

today 25 of May 14:30-16:15 , Room L1, ITU Montbrillant. Link:

http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/200

With best regards,

Yuliya Morenets

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

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon May 25 13:24:26 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 13:24:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [civic] Google Wants To Buy Trinidad and Tobago
 for $30billionUSD - a joke, but is it really?
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6=T2a7RG9VodufB9WKwD_pg6dEKy-HR7bf6ffxTk8D8A@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yacine Khelladi <yacine at yacine.net>
Date: 25 May 2015 at 13:08
Subject: [civic] Google Wants To Buy Trinidad and Tobago for $30billionUSD
To: "Caribbean ICT stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC)" <
civic at dgroups.org>


 May 12, 2015   International   151 Comments
Google Wants To Buy Trinidad and Tobago for $30billionUSD
http://lateoclocknews.com/google-wants-to-buy-trinidad-and-tobago-for-30billionusd/

After Moody’s Investor Service downgraded Trinidad and Tobago’s rating,
Google has been disappointed in Trinidad and Tobago, a nation it has gotten
involved with due to a 2013 email scandal. Google sees TnT as country with
great potential that is being wasted. Google is considering buying the twin
island republic for about $30bUSD to run its affairs more efficiently and
reap the benefits for themselves.

Google CEO, Larry Page, said the company is disappointed most of all by
Trinidad and Tobago’s lack of initiative. “It’s crazy. Thecountry has so
much oil, so many engineering and computer science graduates, so much
international cultural capital, yet they have invented nothing to help with
their traffic problem, they still use typewriters in licensing offices, and
they don’t mass produce steelpans even though the entire world LOVES that
fucking thing! I heard some people even still use Blackberry phones. It
would be an injustice for us to sit back and let this laziness persist.”

Page continued. “For those who know their history, there was a time the US
considered annexing the entire Caribbean to itself, but it thought betterof
it because we didn’t want to give you all full citizenship to migrate to
our shores. We clearly made the wrong decision because you all still flood
our nation in droves anyway. Since colonialism is no longer morally
acceptable, we will go the good old capitalist route and just buy you out
on behalf of our great nation.”

Google does not think running the nation would be much of a hassle even
though it would be their highest grossing acquisition to date. “We bought
Motorolla for $12.5bUSD, I think getting TnT – an entire country – for
$30bUSD is a sweet deal. Running the country may be a challenge but nothing
our interns can’t handle. If for some reason TnT doesn’t bring the profits
we thinkit should, we’ll just sell it to Samsung or Iceland or maybe even
Massy Group, since they’ve been trying to take over the country for years.
However, we don’t expect to have to sell, as we believe Trinidad & Tobago
could be a real moneymaker if properly managed.”

According to Page, most of his information about the financial potential of
Trinidad and Tobago came to them from Jack Warner.

Disclaimer

The Late O’clock News is a news and political satire web publication, which
may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious
ways. All news articles contained within thelateoclocknews.com are fiction,
and presumably fake news.

Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all
references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based
on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.



__________
You are receiving this message because you're a member of the community
Caribbean ICT stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC).
View this contribution on the web site https://dgroups.org/_/1ktwcs6b


A reply to this message will be sent to all members of Caribbean ICT
stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC).
To reply to sender, send a message to yacine at yacine.net.
To unsubscribe, send an email to leave.civic at dgroups.org



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150525/7eb689bd/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  Mon May 25 13:42:34 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 13:42:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <20150524143518.5300307.44338.13331@gmail.com>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net>
	<3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca>
	<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAOaZQePDLxNOla41xQ946THCgAAAEAAAAChIxvC/m/ZGpULY3PVC1G8BAAAAAA==@bango.org.bb>
	<20150524143518.5300307.44338.13331@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21859.24330.608990.648274@world.std.com>


I realize I am fairly new to this list and this question is probably
out of turn but...

Why is this governance list so focused on civil society per se?

This is not a complaint, I'm just reading the messages and can't miss
the pattern.

I'm going to guess the answer is just that's who chooses to
participate currently and that's a fine answer. But maybe I'm missing
something?

-- 
        -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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon May 25 14:13:50 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 14:13:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <21859.24330.608990.648274@world.std.com>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <3EC00E65-6FB3-4348-B2FF-431622469E89@cafonso.ca>
 <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAOaZQePDLxNOla41xQ946THCgAAAEAAAAChIxvC/m/ZGpULY3PVC1G8BAAAAAA==@bango.org.bb>
 <20150524143518.5300307.44338.13331@gmail.com> <21859.24330.608990.648274@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4OsKvba7hjURZs=pHEipco8YsHaf=Rg5poFR87-mKeiw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Barry,
If you expand IGC fully you get Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.
That's why :-)
Deirdre

On 25 May 2015 at 13:42, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:

>
> I realize I am fairly new to this list and this question is probably
> out of turn but...
>
> Why is this governance list so focused on civil society per se?
>
> This is not a complaint, I'm just reading the messages and can't miss
> the pattern.
>
> I'm going to guess the answer is just that's who chooses to
> participate currently and that's a fine answer. But maybe I'm missing
> something?
>
> --
>         -Barry Shein
>
> The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           |
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR,
> Canada
> Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150525/18df3bf9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ahmed22digital at gmail.com  Tue May 26 07:06:18 2015
From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:06:18 +0300
Subject: [governance] DAY 1 & DAY 2 in wsis 2012
Message-ID: <CACKazKp+esT5qEJxhZ8Wgpq=hH2K6sd8Ze-1ZRcBfXpiXMuwgA@mail.gmail.com>

​

* Mr Fadi Chehade, CEO and President, ICANN speaks @ Opening Policy
Statements*



CTA win the e-Agriculture WSIS 2015 Prize

http://www.unite-it.eu/profiles/blogs/wsis-2015-started-and-gdco-sudan-attended-remotely-first-day


https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/185

https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/234



Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa
+249123031155 Sudani

+249912331155 Zain

+249999331155  MTN
KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021

post code 12217


 http://www.gedaref.com/

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


Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit
organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where
ICT is used for community development.  GDCO is the winner of information
for development award  (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the
disabled, GDCO is the  winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations
at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the
initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and
other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the
winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in
Sudan.  The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the
founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the
thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the
founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750
computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for
community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG
(foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new
partnership for community development including people with disability
(especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture,
SeVO and other project
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150526/da1e77ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Picture1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 439976 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150526/da1e77ea/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dafalla at yahoo.com  Tue May 26 14:47:57 2015
From: dafalla at yahoo.com (dafalla at yahoo.com)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 11:47:57 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4OsKvba7hjURZs=pHEipco8YsHaf=Rg5poFR87-mKeiw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1432666077.54427.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web160103.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Thanks
Hago

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150526/0f603d92/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 riseup.net  Tue May 26 15:28:45 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 16:28:45 -0300
Subject: [governance] The elephant in the room?
In-Reply-To: <5562B2B9.6050403@itforchange.net>
References: <D1875DF5.341DD%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca> <5562B2B9.6050403@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5564C96D.6070903@riseup.net>


Dear parminder and all,

after I read the text of Becky, I wanted to know, who is One World 
Trust. Therefore. That's why I looked around a bit on the site 
www.oneworldtrust.org.

In About Us:
"A detailed review of the past links between the One World Trust and the 
All Party Group, can be found here."
Voices in Parliament; a brief study of a successful All-Party 
Parliamentary Group
www.oneworldtrust.org/publications/doc_view/195-appgwg-and-owt-history?tmpl=component&format=raw

Dear parminder, never i thought, that there comes a positive answer like 
from you. You have to read this text. Then you understand, that the 
interest and intention of this organisation is very different of that of 
you. I hope that.

With "accountability" we have the same situation like with the routing 
of our data packets. If you create a system, where the necessarity of 
"Governace" or "Accountability" is a design principle, then the "Civil 
Society", the people, lost.

The perspective of a "One World", a "New World Order", a "Super 
Government" or any other shit, is a moving of representative systems to 
a single center. Not important, where. Wall Street, City of London or 
any. Like in all representative systems, the people have no trust. 
Because the reality is very different to the representative theater. 
This make the propaganda to "accountability" necessary.

You start tour life in India. Or not? Therefore, you know the lies of 
the British elites and occupiers. We speak about self organizing, self 
determination, if we speak about Civil Society.

many greetings, willi
Buenos Aires, Argentina


Am 25/05/2015 um 02:27 a.m. schrieb parminder: (in BestBit)
> Dear Becky/ All
>
> Good to see a substantive discussion begin on this important topic.
>
> Hope the list can sustain such a discussion to come up with a
> transparency and accountability framework that is best for the IG civil
> society.
>
> The four principles in the cited document look good to me -
> transparency, participation, evaluation, and complaint and response
> mechanisms.
>
> Look forward to a good discussion on this list, and BB's steering
> committee's response to the proposal.
>
> I am also seeking a discussion on the JNC list, and will also request a
> formal response from the JNC.
>
> Best, parminder
>
>
>
> On Sunday 24 May 2015 09:14 PM, Becky Lentz wrote: (in BestBit)
>> Dear BB and JNC colleagues,
>>
>> Reading BB list posts over the past two days re the tension/debate about
>> accountability feels toxic/uncivil (at least to this reader anyway),
>> unless that recurring conversation can actually Œgo somewhere¹ beyond
>> periodic disagreements about what is/isn¹t civil society and what
>> transparency and representation ought to mean, or doesn't mean, to various
>> participants. What is remarkable, imho, is how BB has managed to find ways
>> to work together when it is strategically useful to do so despite all of
>> the obstacles to collaboration that clearly exist: the elephant in the
>> room. Yet, while that doesn¹t seem problematic to some, it does to others
>> if they are seeking to change the very values/principles that drive the
>> work itself.
>>
>> For what it¹s worth (knowing that those with longer histories doing this
>> kind of work most likely have encountered such tools as well as critiques
>> of them), here are some links that might be considered by BB¹s executive
>> committee, and for that matter, the JNC¹s leaders, if either is
>> potentially interested in taking its own model of collaboration to another
>> level in the IG/digital rights field and beyond. In fact, the IG/digital
>> rights field could take on actually providing other fields with a model of
>> how to navigate these tensions, if addressing Œthe elephant in the room¹
>> were also considered an equally important Œpart of the work¹ alongside the
>> very necessary research/advocacy/organizing work already going on.
>>
>> The tools in this resource uphold four accountability principles.
>> Implemented at various key institutional and research processes, they aim
>> to improve accountability relations between organisations and their
>> stakeholders: http://www.oneworldtrust.org/apro/about and
>> http://www.oneworldtrust.org/apro/about/using_the_tools.
>>
>> This may also be of interest 'Does it matter Who Funds You?¹
>> http://www.oneworldtrust.org/blog/?p=579
>>
>> Becky Lentz
>> McGill University
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

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

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Tue May 26 17:10:37 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:10:37 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <CF50E28585184AFAA4BBC8D7F48AB245@Toshiba>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <CF50E28585184AFAA4BBC8D7F48AB245@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <5564E14D.9000203@eff.org>

On 24/05/2015 11:57 pm, Ian Peter wrote:
> Secondly, I wonder how it would work in CS which has so many people
> who are basically acting as individuals rather than representatives of
> organisations. Many if not most of us also have non CS affiliations
> (eg membership of ISOC, business or governmental employees if we are
> cs volunteers, academic postings etc) so the “pure” CS rep is probably
> a bit hard to find. I am not sure what we would gain by having a
> register of all our multiple affiliations which would need regular
> updating to be of any use.  I think we need to ensure our major
> coalitions (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) act transparently, and by and
> large I think they do. But I am not sure of the value of extending
> this to what is probably tens of thousands of members or organisations
> affiliated with these larger groups.

Agreed.  I also feel that it's a misplaced priority.  If any of us
actually had enough influence to being making significant impacts on
policy, then the expenditure of time and resources on self-policing
ourselves in this fashion might make some sense.  But since we have
enough difficulty as it is just with being heard, let alone having an
impact, it just seems a real misallocation of scarce resources for us to
be placing ourselves under the microscope like this, especially since
nobody but ourselves is raising the question.  Instead of a register,
there are already voluntary transparency pledges that one can adopt (eg
the INGO Accountability Charter,
http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/).  Anything heavier than that
is, I feel, difficult to justify.

Also, take note of this article (from the left, by the way), criticising
efforts to enforce formal accountability standards on civil society
organisations:

http://hapinternational.org/pool/files/ngos,-civil-soc.pdf

-- 
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/20150526/34c0edd0/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/20150526/34c0edd0/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 May 28 01:05:27 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 06:05:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] John Gilmore on ICANN.
In-Reply-To: <CAKx4trh8rdc32tGQvN1mQ2O0a22Sn1dkdbMGmXRrdJkYV6nd5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trh8rdc32tGQvN1mQ2O0a22Sn1dkdbMGmXRrdJkYV6nd5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <03e301d09903$f34fa8a0$d9eef9e0$@gmail.com>

From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] 
Sent: May 28, 2015 12:09 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] John Gilmore on ICANN.

 

I believe this is not an inaccurate description from a historical standpoint. I also attend to agree with many of the points John takes.

Dave

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "John Gilmore" <gnu at toad.com <mailto:gnu at toad.com> >
Date: May 27, 2015 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [IP] How global DNS could survive in the frozen lands outside US control
To: <dave at farber.net <mailto:dave at farber.net> >
Cc: "ip" <ip at listbox.com <mailto:ip at listbox.com> >

ICANN has built itself a nice monopoly, with very little outside
influence or control.  Now it wants to reduce that to "zero" outside
influence or control.  The community and the US Government should
decline to do so.  (PS: The community has little or no say over this.)

Back when ICANN was formed in 1998, EFF proposed that ICANN's
"nonprofit" corporate charter should include some basic protections
for freedom of speech and press, due process, international human
rights, transparency, and such.  See:

  https://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/19980923_eff_new_iana.bylaws
  https://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/19980924_eff_new_iana_pressrel.html

  "... any foundation for governance of a communications system, such as
  the Internet, should stand on the fundamental human right of free
  expression.  ...  What was suppossed to be an excercise in Internet
  democracy has become an excercise in Internet oligarchy" - Barry
  Steinhardt, EFF President

and see generally:

  https://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/

ICANN's management and lawyers refused to include any such provisions,
on the theory that if they were included, then people could succeed in
suing ICANN if it violated freedom of speech or the press, did things
to domain holders without due process, or was not transparent about
its activities.  ICANN management wanted the right to violate those
human rights and public oversight provisions -- and they ultimately
got it.  No court can decide whether ICANN's actions violate
international human rights law, because ICANN is not required to
follow international human rights law; it isn't a government and it
never signed those treaties.  It isn't required to follow the US Bill
of Rights, because it isn't a government.  It isn't required to follow
basic transparency policies like Freedom of Information or Open
Meetings, except to the extent that the US Government currently
requires that under their contract with ICANN.  It isn't required to
follow anything but California and US nonprofit law (which it
deliberately violated anyway, see below).  Yes, the sole substantive
rules that govern ICANN are the same ones that control the struggling
2-person environmental group or underfunded health clinic doing a bake
sale in a nearby park.  The creation of an unaccountable ICANN was all
handled by ICANN's "unpaid volunteer" lawyer, Joe Sims of the Los
Angeles firm Jones Day, who later, once the gravy train was set up,
started charging ICANN a good chunk for his ongoing advice.  As of
2014, ICANN pays Jones Day almost $4 million annually for legal
services.

ICANN soon started charging domain registrars a fee of 20c per year
per domain, for doing nothing except protecting itself from outsiders
and paying itself large wages.  ICANN sets the amount of this fee
itself, and there is nothing that outsiders, or ICANN's customers, can
do to challenge it or change it.  It is currently 18c per transaction,
and raises about $80 million dollars per year, all of which ICANN
finds some way to spend on itself and its lawyers.  By 2014 it had
more than 300 employees churning around looking for ways to spend
money on themselves and their contractors.  More than 30 of these
"nonprofit" employees make more than $250,000 a year or are "paid
directors", with the CEO wasting $900K/year.  It also spent about
$575K of your domain fees lobbying the government on its own behalf
("a staff registered lobbyist and two government affairs firms").  See
pages 7-9 and 30 and 52-53 of:

  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2014-form-990-31mar15-en.pdf

At one point a single outside critic, Karl Auerbach, slipped onto the
ICANN Board of Directors.  ICANN is (was?) a California nonprofit, and
the Directors of a nonprofit have responsibility for the acts of the
nonprofit -- and have rights to oversee its acts.  They can inspect
the physical premises at any time, and can see and copy any documents
that the business has.  Otherwise the theory that the Board is in
control is a hollow mockery, and California law doesn't allow that.
ICANN claimed that its Board members could not actually access basic
information like the financial statements of the organization (how
much money comes in, how much goes out, and for what reasons).  Not
only did ICANN management refuse.  The rest of the ICANN board,
including Chairman Vint Cerf, refused, and circled the wagons to
protect ICANN from actual transparency.  In 2002, EFF helped Karl file
a lawsuit under California law to enforce his rights.  ICANN contested
the lawsuit, and Vint filed a declaration with the court in support of
their position.  ICANN lost that lawsuit, and Karl got to look at the
financial reports -- but did not get to show the finances of this
"nonprofit" to the public.  ICANN immediately revised the procedures
for electing their board, to make sure that no critic would ever get
on the board again.  However, they did start being more transparent
about their finances, since these would have to come out in their
publicly available income tax returns anyway.  See:

  https://www.eff.org/cases/auerbach-v-icann
  https://www.eff.org/press/releases/icann-director-seeks-court-order-review-records
  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fiscal-2014-09-15-en

Fast forward another few years, and ICANN decided to sell new
top-level domains.  The bidding process was completely rigged to
ICANN's benefit; bidders sent in a non-refundable $185,000 per
proposed domain and were guaranteed exactly nothing in return.  Domain
speculators sent in a frenzy of money, as expected, and ICANN raked in
a one-time profit of $350 million.  Some of those domains have gone
live since, and as expected, they have mainly benefited ICANN.
Recently in 2015 ICANN auctioned off ".app" for $25 million, which it
says went into a "designated purpose" fund, which ICANN of course has
sole control over.  As with the about $80 million in recurring revenue
from domain registrars and registries, they have struggled mightily
but succeeded in finding ways to waste almost all of these hundreds of
millions on themselves and their buddies.  As of 2014, they estimate
that all but $100M has been spent, and that is carefully hoarded in a
"Risk Reserve" for "future costs that cannot be estimated" (up to now,
only $1M in "risk reserve" has been actually spent).  In 2014 they
spent or wasted $17M with Ernst & Young, $16M with KPMG, $8M with "JAS
Global Advisors", $4M with Interconnect Communications, $2.8M with
Price Waterhouse, and $2.6M with Chambre de Commerce Internationale,
all for the new top-level domains program.  See:

  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun12-en.pdf
  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy14-22aug13-en.pdf

ICANN recently decided that the money it receives for each domain name
registered does not obligate it to do anything in particular; or as the
lawyers put it on page 75 of:

  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2014-form-990-31mar15-en.pdf

  ICANN HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS DO
  NOT INCLUDE ANY OBLIGATIONS FOR ICANN THAT PERTAIN TO EACH SPECIFIC
  REGISTRATION OF A DOMAIN NAME. ICANN CONSIDERS THAT ITS CONTRACTUAL
  OBLIGATIONS ARE UNRELATED TO A SPECIFIC DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION,
  WHICH THEREFORE DOES NOT CREATE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS
  WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A DEFERRAL OF REVENUE OVER THE DURATION OF THE
  REGISTRATION. AS A RESULT, ICANN HAS CHANGED ITS REVENUE RECOGNITION
  METHOD SO THAT THE TRANSACTION-BASED FEES ARE RECOGNIZED AS REVENUE
  WHEN EACH TRANSACTION OCCURS.

In other words, they specifically state that you are paying them for
NOTHING when you pay them every year (via your registrar and registry)
to renew your domain name.  The reason you have to pay?  Because they
control the root and they demand payment, not because they are doing
anything for you.

One minor drag on ICANN's ability to do exactly what it wants has been
the original US Government contract to run the domain name system.
Whenever ICANN got a little too crazy, the government would gently
suggest that perhaps it would re-bid that contract to somebody a
little less crazy.  As far as I can tell from outside, the USG has
used a very light touch in this process.  Anyway, the USG has never
been particularly unhappy about creating monopolies for the private
benefit of the monopolies.  But nevertheless, the structure galled
other countries, especially those who want to use international
institutions dominated by governments to impose their own kind of
cultural baggage (censorship, wiretapping, etc) on global Internet
users.  Or kleptocrats who could see how any international institution
that managed to wangle control of ICANN could start extracting free
money from the Internet; ICANN would just pass the costs down to all
of us, in a way that we already have no way to contest.  So "Get the
US out of domains" became a rallying cry for a kind of misguided
leftists in alliance with third world autocrats.  That is the current
"debate" in the multi-decade debacle of ICANN.

To sum it up?  If domain users have zero control over ICANN, if
ordinary domain owners have zero control over ICANN, if ISPs have zero
control, if domain registrars have zero control, if governments have
zero control, if even its sinecure board members have zero control,
then who will have any control over what ICANN does with the domain
name system that billions of people rely upon?  The answer is pretty
simple: ICANN management and lawyers will have full control, fat
personal salaries, a pot of hundreds of millions that they're sitting
on, recurring revenues that are totally set by their fiat, and the
rest of us will have zip.  Any questions?

        John Gilmore
        (speaking for myself, not for the Electronic Frontier Foundation)


 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives  <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3> |  <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308> Modify Your Subscription |  <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20150527190840:4BEADCFA-04C5-11E5-AA9B-E26F2882AD14> Unsubscribe Now 

 <http://www.listbox.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150528/0eb94272/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150528/0eb94272/attachment.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 ahmed22digital at gmail.com  Thu May 28 07:36:31 2015
From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:36:31 +0300
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?ICANN_=40_WSIS_2015_TODAY_Thursday_28_May?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=2C_16=3A45_=E2=80=93_18=3A15?=
Message-ID: <CACKazKq=h7HcMYb_G5ZJceXm9ym9QzPWYzHNY3=uprZ1nx_BfA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends

in few hours there will be a session IANA Stewardship Transition - A Live
Example of a Multi-Stakeholder Process Thursday 28 May, 16:45 – 18:15

https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/269



you can watch it through adobeconnect

https://www.itu.int/…/…/2015/Agenda/AdobeConnect/Session/269
<https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/AdobeConnect/Session/269>



or webcast and click on the language

https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Webcast/Live



WSIS 2015 agenda

https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/

Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa
+249123031155 Sudani

+249912331155 Zain

+249999331155  MTN
KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021

post code 12217


 http://www.gedaref.com/

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


Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit
organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where
ICT is used for community development.  GDCO is the winner of information
for development award  (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the
disabled, GDCO is the  winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations
at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the
initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and
other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the
winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in
Sudan.  The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the
founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the
thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the
founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750
computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for
community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG
(foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new
partnership for community development including people with disability
(especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture,
SeVO and other project
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150528/a6ada20d/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 May 28 07:39:54 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:09:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <CF50E28585184AFAA4BBC8D7F48AB245@Toshiba>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <CF50E28585184AFAA4BBC8D7F48AB245@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net>

Thanks Ian

Responding to the two issues you raise.

On Monday 25 May 2015 12:27 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>  
> Two issues in response to your suggestion.
>  
> Firstly, the suggestion that CSCG do this. CSCG consists of five
> people who are pretty busy co-ordinating coalitions of CS
> organisations (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) and myself as an independent
> chair. The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society
> response and conduit when it comes to making civil society
> appointments to outside organisations.  It has no staff, no funding,
> not even a formal charter.  In order to address some of the issues it
> faces I have suggested from time to time  that the membership be
> expanded to include say 3 more respected civil society people who are
> not formal representatives of coalitions of CS organisations. The last
> time I suggested this it was met with some strongly worded negative
> responses from JNC and I have not heard of any change of position on
> this. So for these reasons I don’t think CSCG is the right
> organisation to take on this task. Perhaps IGC?

I suggested CSCG bec it has reps from major CS networks and so there was
a common ownership over what should be a commonly owned and directed
initiative so that there is scope of bias, and appropriate avenues of
recourse exist. I still think CSCG the right body for it, but IGC would
do as well. As for resources, let me make this blind offer, I will try
and raise resources for one person devoting her half/ quarter time, who
can be housed in a reputed org with a neutral image, for this purpose.
More resources are needed initially for setting it up, but once set up
it wont require much. I still do not know from where id seek resources
but I am confident that with so much funds coming into the IG space
someone somewhere would give a few thousand dollars for overall
transparency and accountability in the sector. That should address and
settle the resources argument in terms of my proposal.
 
>  
> Secondly, I wonder how it would work in CS which has so many people
> who are basically acting as individuals rather than representatives of
> organisations. Many if not most of us also have non CS affiliations
> (eg membership of ISOC, business or governmental employees if we are
> cs volunteers, academic postings etc) so the “pure” CS rep is probably
> a bit hard to find. I am not sure what we would gain by having a
> register of all our multiple affiliations which would need regular
> updating to be of any use.  I think we need to ensure our major
> coalitions (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) act transparently, and by and
> large I think they do. But I am not sure of the value of extending
> this to what is probably tens of thousands of members or organisations
> affiliated with these larger groups.

Almost all CS transparency and accountability initiatives are focussed
on organisations and not individuals, bec of the obvious reasons that
the former have a greater role and impact. One  may not need such
processes for individuals, other than perhaps when any nominations or
appointments are being on behalf of civil society , in which case anyone
would agree  that some basic declarations should in any case be
necessary, and such simple and basic decelerations alone are what my
proposed initiative asks for. 

>  
> Over to others to discuss. I am not opposed to the suggestion that
> something be done in this area,  but I think we need to refine any
> such idea somewhat,

Please give suggestions.

> and if the aim is somehow to enhance CS credibility and transparency
> in this space, perhaps we should also discuss what other measures
> might also assist this.

And for this as well.

Thanks again. parminder
>  
> Ian Peter
>  
> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:31 PM
> *To:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com> ;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ;
> BestBitsList <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ;
> mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing
> space for the APC Community. <mailto:apc.forum at lists.apc.org>
> *Subject:* [governance] Civil society transparency
>  
> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society
> Coordination Group (CSCG) ,
>
> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project,
> somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see
> http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .
>
> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one
> for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil
> society which should set the highest example of transparency and
> accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on
> objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its
> funding, partners, and so on....
>
> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil
> society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would
> be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is
> no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for
> partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness,
> transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.
>
> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/
> org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how
> its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with
> their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any
> means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.
>
> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an
> organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such
> organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of
> criteria.
>
> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the
> NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also
> recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the
> OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we
> begin practising what we preach.
>
> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..
>
> parminder
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150528/0384b4ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ahmed22digital at gmail.com  Thu May 28 11:55:04 2015
From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:55:04 +0300
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=5Bfellowships-alumni=5D_ICANN_Announc?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ement_Regarding_CEO_Fadi_Chehad=C3=A9?=
In-Reply-To: <CACKazKp12kgUOLs3o6LtPdKTZfp0Gv0bE+ct95iTGKjOg5k4rA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D183490F.32119%janice.lange@icann.org>
	<CACKazKqHpTiPkpn6Zsbwjsx7APjuNj+ZZzjP+nZZWZBM=OD4Aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACKazKp12kgUOLs3o6LtPdKTZfp0Gv0bE+ct95iTGKjOg5k4rA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACKazKq8F3er7Qr_hUTOT9wQ-p3zgJaCBMSngVwURadxVnhA1A@mail.gmail.com>

dear friends
ICANN Session for IANA Stewardship Transition - A Live Example of a
Multi-Stakeholder Process started in Geneva \

please joinhttps://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/269 then
click on adobeconnect or webcast

at the same time there is ISOC session about Impact of Locally Relevant
Content https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/268\







​


Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa
+249123031155 Sudani

+249912331155 Zain

+249999331155  MTN
KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021

post code 12217


 http://www.gedaref.com/

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


Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit
organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where
ICT is used for community development.  GDCO is the winner of information
for development award  (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the
disabled, GDCO is the  winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations
at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the
initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and
other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the
winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in
Sudan.  The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the
founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the
thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the
founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750
computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for
community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG
(foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new
partnership for community development including people with disability
(especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture,
SeVO and other project



On 28 May 2015 at 14:33, ahmed eisa <ahmed22digital at gmail.com> wrote:

> in few hours there will be a session IANA Stewardship Transition - A Live
> Example of a Multi-Stakeholder Process Thursday 28 May, 16:45 – 18:15
>
> https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/269
>
>
>
> you can watch it through adobeconnect
>
> https://www.itu.int/…/…/2015/Agenda/AdobeConnect/Session/269
> <https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/AdobeConnect/Session/269>
>
>
>
> or webcast and click on the language
>
> https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Webcast/Live
>
>
>
> WSIS 2015 agenda
>
> https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/
>
> Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa
> +249123031155 Sudani
>
> +249912331155 Zain
>
> +249999331155  MTN
> KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021
>
> post code 12217
>
>
>  http://www.gedaref.com/
>
>
> http://seepcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/gdco-sudan-and-telecentres-movement-promote-for-ict
>
>
> Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and
> nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres
> movement where ICT is used for community development.  GDCO is the winner
> of information for development award  (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the
> inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the  winner of i4d 2008 awards for the
> best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009
> for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project
> and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the
> winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in
> Sudan.  The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the
> founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the
> thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the
> founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750
> computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for
> community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG
> (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new
> partnership for community development including people with disability
> (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture,
> SeVO and other project
>
>
>
> On 27 May 2015 at 09:03, ahmed eisa <ahmed22digital at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> ​ CEO Fadi Chehadé speaking on th high level policy statement  of ICANN @
>> WSIS 2015 on 26 May 2015
>>
>> Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa
>> +249123031155 Sudani
>>
>> +249912331155 Zain
>>
>> +249999331155  MTN
>> KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021
>>
>> post code 12217
>>
>>
>>  http://www.gedaref.com/
>>
>>
>> http://seepcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/gdco-sudan-and-telecentres-movement-promote-for-ict
>>
>>
>> Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and
>> nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres
>> movement where ICT is used for community development.  GDCO is the winner
>> of information for development award  (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the
>> inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the  winner of i4d 2008 awards for the
>> best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009
>> for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project
>> and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the
>> winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in
>> Sudan.  The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the
>> founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the
>> thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the
>> founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750
>> computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for
>> community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG
>> (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new
>> partnership for community development including people with disability
>> (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture,
>> SeVO and other project
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21 May 2015 at 18:32, Janice Douma Lange <janice.lange at icann.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone
>>>
>>> As not everyone on this list is subscribed to our Fellowship Facebook
>>> page where I posted this information earlier this morning, please note the
>>> ICANN Homepage Announcement regarding Fadi
>>> Chehadé    https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-21-en.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fellowships-alumni mailing list
>>> Fellowships-alumni at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/fellowships-alumni
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150528/492f5172/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Picture2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 439976 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150528/492f5172/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN.png
Type: image/png
Size: 433289 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150528/492f5172/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: icann wsis.png
Type: image/png
Size: 577745 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150528/492f5172/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Thu May 28 14:07:45 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:07:45 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] John Gilmore on ICANN.
In-Reply-To: <03e301d09903$f34fa8a0$d9eef9e0$@gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trh8rdc32tGQvN1mQ2O0a22Sn1dkdbMGmXRrdJkYV6nd5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <03e301d09903$f34fa8a0$d9eef9e0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ef49330e039d47f2a2f85335b5bde0f1@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Dave:

I believe this is not an inaccurate description from a historical standpoint.

There are quite a few inaccuracies, although I share Gilmore’s fundamental perspective that ICANN uses its monopoly on the root to tax and regulate DNS suppliers and users.

Gilmore seems oblivious to a more fundamental fact, however: the US oversight role is NOT some improvement or check on these actions of ICANN’s that he complains about, but are part and parcel of it. The USG has been complicit in everything that ICANN has done and often emphasizes the worst aspects of it.

For example:
Back when ICANN was formed in 1998, EFF proposed that ICANN's
"nonprofit" corporate charter should include some basic protections
for freedom of speech and press, due process, international human
rights, transparency, and such.  See:
[snip]
ICANN's management and lawyers refused to include any such provisions,

Whoa, pardner. It wasn’t ICANN’s management and lawyers who decided this, it was NTIA. Many of us urged the Commerce Department to require them to include free speech protections, and the Commerce Department flatly refused. They are the Commerce Department, not the human rights department, after all.
This is what makes the claim that US oversight of ICANN is a great protector of free speech so ironic.
ICANN soon started charging domain registrars a fee of 20c per year
per domain, for doing nothing except protecting itself from outsiders
and paying itself large wages.  ICANN sets the amount of this fee
itself, and there is nothing that outsiders, or ICANN's customers, can
do to challenge it or change it.  It is currently 18c per transaction,
and raises about $80 million dollars per year, all of which ICANN
finds some way to spend on itself and its lawyers.  By 2014 it had

Again, this was done with the approval, if not the insistence of the USG. The USG, responding to the demands of trademark holders, wanted a regulatory agency to police cybersquatting. All regulators need funding to sustain their activities, and they survive on the basis of taxes. ICANN is no exception. It’s financial viability was very shaky until it started doing this.

At one point a single outside critic, Karl Auerbach, slipped onto the
ICANN Board of Directors.
No, he didn’t “slip in” he was elected – in an election I believe Gilmore urged everyone to boycott or ignore.
But EFF does deserve kudos for backing Auerbach’s lawsuit!

One minor drag on ICANN's ability to do exactly what it wants has been
the original US Government contract to run the domain name system.
Whenever ICANN got a little too crazy, the government would gently
suggest that perhaps it would re-bid that contract to somebody a
little less crazy.

Oh, what a fantasy. NTIA and ICANN have a collusive relationship. When you talk about “light touch” go back and look at the .xxx incident or at the US-led Governmental Advisory Committee’s role in forcing a top-down regulatory structure on registrars and registries.
It’s ok to be anti-ICANN but you’ve got to be realistic about where a lot of its power is coming from.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150528/96414601/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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Thu May 28 15:59:31 2015
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:59:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] John Gilmore on ICANN.
In-Reply-To: <03e301d09903$f34fa8a0$d9eef9e0$@gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trh8rdc32tGQvN1mQ2O0a22Sn1dkdbMGmXRrdJkYV6nd5Q@mail.gmail.com> <03e301d09903$f34fa8a0$d9eef9e0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <556773A3.1010702@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks, this is very useful.
Stephanie Perrin
On 15-05-28 1:05 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> *From:*Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net]
> *Sent:* May 28, 2015 12:09 AM
> *To:* ip
> *Subject:* [IP] John Gilmore on ICANN.
>
> I believe this is not an inaccurate description from a historical 
> standpoint. I also attend to agree with many of the points John takes.
>
> Dave
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "John Gilmore" <gnu at toad.com <mailto:gnu at toad.com>>
> Date: May 27, 2015 6:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [IP] How global DNS could survive in the frozen lands 
> outside US control
> To: <dave at farber.net <mailto:dave at farber.net>>
> Cc: "ip" <ip at listbox.com <mailto:ip at listbox.com>>
>
> ICANN has built itself a nice monopoly, with very little outside
> influence or control.  Now it wants to reduce that to "zero" outside
> influence or control.  The community and the US Government should
> decline to do so.  (PS: The community has little or no say over this.)
>
> Back when ICANN was formed in 1998, EFF proposed that ICANN's
> "nonprofit" corporate charter should include some basic protections
> for freedom of speech and press, due process, international human
> rights, transparency, and such.  See:
>
> https://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/19980923_eff_new_iana.bylaws
> https://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/19980924_eff_new_iana_pressrel.html
>
>   "... any foundation for governance of a communications system, such as
>   the Internet, should stand on the fundamental human right of free
>   expression.  ...  What was suppossed to be an excercise in Internet
>   democracy has become an excercise in Internet oligarchy" - Barry
>   Steinhardt, EFF President
>
> and see generally:
>
> https://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/
>
> ICANN's management and lawyers refused to include any such provisions,
> on the theory that if they were included, then people could succeed in
> suing ICANN if it violated freedom of speech or the press, did things
> to domain holders without due process, or was not transparent about
> its activities.  ICANN management wanted the right to violate those
> human rights and public oversight provisions -- and they ultimately
> got it.  No court can decide whether ICANN's actions violate
> international human rights law, because ICANN is not required to
> follow international human rights law; it isn't a government and it
> never signed those treaties.  It isn't required to follow the US Bill
> of Rights, because it isn't a government.  It isn't required to follow
> basic transparency policies like Freedom of Information or Open
> Meetings, except to the extent that the US Government currently
> requires that under their contract with ICANN.  It isn't required to
> follow anything but California and US nonprofit law (which it
> deliberately violated anyway, see below).  Yes, the sole substantive
> rules that govern ICANN are the same ones that control the struggling
> 2-person environmental group or underfunded health clinic doing a bake
> sale in a nearby park.  The creation of an unaccountable ICANN was all
> handled by ICANN's "unpaid volunteer" lawyer, Joe Sims of the Los
> Angeles firm Jones Day, who later, once the gravy train was set up,
> started charging ICANN a good chunk for his ongoing advice. As of
> 2014, ICANN pays Jones Day almost $4 million annually for legal
> services.
>
> ICANN soon started charging domain registrars a fee of 20c per year
> per domain, for doing nothing except protecting itself from outsiders
> and paying itself large wages.  ICANN sets the amount of this fee
> itself, and there is nothing that outsiders, or ICANN's customers, can
> do to challenge it or change it.  It is currently 18c per transaction,
> and raises about $80 million dollars per year, all of which ICANN
> finds some way to spend on itself and its lawyers.  By 2014 it had
> more than 300 employees churning around looking for ways to spend
> money on themselves and their contractors.  More than 30 of these
> "nonprofit" employees make more than $250,000 a year or are "paid
> directors", with the CEO wasting $900K/year.  It also spent about
> $575K of your domain fees lobbying the government on its own behalf
> ("a staff registered lobbyist and two government affairs firms").  See
> pages 7-9 and 30 and 52-53 of:
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2014-form-990-31mar15-en.pdf
>
> At one point a single outside critic, Karl Auerbach, slipped onto the
> ICANN Board of Directors.  ICANN is (was?) a California nonprofit, and
> the Directors of a nonprofit have responsibility for the acts of the
> nonprofit -- and have rights to oversee its acts.  They can inspect
> the physical premises at any time, and can see and copy any documents
> that the business has.  Otherwise the theory that the Board is in
> control is a hollow mockery, and California law doesn't allow that.
> ICANN claimed that its Board members could not actually access basic
> information like the financial statements of the organization (how
> much money comes in, how much goes out, and for what reasons).  Not
> only did ICANN management refuse.  The rest of the ICANN board,
> including Chairman Vint Cerf, refused, and circled the wagons to
> protect ICANN from actual transparency.  In 2002, EFF helped Karl file
> a lawsuit under California law to enforce his rights.  ICANN contested
> the lawsuit, and Vint filed a declaration with the court in support of
> their position.  ICANN lost that lawsuit, and Karl got to look at the
> financial reports -- but did not get to show the finances of this
> "nonprofit" to the public.  ICANN immediately revised the procedures
> for electing their board, to make sure that no critic would ever get
> on the board again.  However, they did start being more transparent
> about their finances, since these would have to come out in their
> publicly available income tax returns anyway.  See:
>
> https://www.eff.org/cases/auerbach-v-icann
> https://www.eff.org/press/releases/icann-director-seeks-court-order-review-records
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fiscal-2014-09-15-en
>
> Fast forward another few years, and ICANN decided to sell new
> top-level domains.  The bidding process was completely rigged to
> ICANN's benefit; bidders sent in a non-refundable $185,000 per
> proposed domain and were guaranteed exactly nothing in return.  Domain
> speculators sent in a frenzy of money, as expected, and ICANN raked in
> a one-time profit of $350 million.  Some of those domains have gone
> live since, and as expected, they have mainly benefited ICANN.
> Recently in 2015 ICANN auctioned off ".app" for $25 million, which it
> says went into a "designated purpose" fund, which ICANN of course has
> sole control over.  As with the about $80 million in recurring revenue
> from domain registrars and registries, they have struggled mightily
> but succeeded in finding ways to waste almost all of these hundreds of
> millions on themselves and their buddies.  As of 2014, they estimate
> that all but $100M has been spent, and that is carefully hoarded in a
> "Risk Reserve" for "future costs that cannot be estimated" (up to now,
> only $1M in "risk reserve" has been actually spent).  In 2014 they
> spent or wasted $17M with Ernst & Young, $16M with KPMG, $8M with "JAS
> Global Advisors", $4M with Interconnect Communications, $2.8M with
> Price Waterhouse, and $2.6M with Chambre de Commerce Internationale,
> all for the new top-level domains program.  See:
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun12-en.pdf
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy14-22aug13-en.pdf
>
> ICANN recently decided that the money it receives for each domain name
> registered does not obligate it to do anything in particular; or as the
> lawyers put it on page 75 of:
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2014-form-990-31mar15-en.pdf
>
>   ICANN HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS DO
>   NOT INCLUDE ANY OBLIGATIONS FOR ICANN THAT PERTAIN TO EACH SPECIFIC
>   REGISTRATION OF A DOMAIN NAME. ICANN CONSIDERS THAT ITS CONTRACTUAL
>   OBLIGATIONS ARE UNRELATED TO A SPECIFIC DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION,
>   WHICH THEREFORE DOES NOT CREATE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS
>   WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A DEFERRAL OF REVENUE OVER THE DURATION OF THE
>   REGISTRATION. AS A RESULT, ICANN HAS CHANGED ITS REVENUE RECOGNITION
>   METHOD SO THAT THE TRANSACTION-BASED FEES ARE RECOGNIZED AS REVENUE
>   WHEN EACH TRANSACTION OCCURS.
>
> In other words, they specifically state that you are paying them for
> NOTHING when you pay them every year (via your registrar and registry)
> to renew your domain name.  The reason you have to pay? Because they
> control the root and they demand payment, not because they are doing
> anything for you.
>
> One minor drag on ICANN's ability to do exactly what it wants has been
> the original US Government contract to run the domain name system.
> Whenever ICANN got a little too crazy, the government would gently
> suggest that perhaps it would re-bid that contract to somebody a
> little less crazy.  As far as I can tell from outside, the USG has
> used a very light touch in this process.  Anyway, the USG has never
> been particularly unhappy about creating monopolies for the private
> benefit of the monopolies.  But nevertheless, the structure galled
> other countries, especially those who want to use international
> institutions dominated by governments to impose their own kind of
> cultural baggage (censorship, wiretapping, etc) on global Internet
> users.  Or kleptocrats who could see how any international institution
> that managed to wangle control of ICANN could start extracting free
> money from the Internet; ICANN would just pass the costs down to all
> of us, in a way that we already have no way to contest.  So "Get the
> US out of domains" became a rallying cry for a kind of misguided
> leftists in alliance with third world autocrats.  That is the current
> "debate" in the multi-decade debacle of ICANN.
>
> To sum it up?  If domain users have zero control over ICANN, if
> ordinary domain owners have zero control over ICANN, if ISPs have zero
> control, if domain registrars have zero control, if governments have
> zero control, if even its sinecure board members have zero control,
> then who will have any control over what ICANN does with the domain
> name system that billions of people rely upon?  The answer is pretty
> simple: ICANN management and lawyers will have full control, fat
> personal salaries, a pot of hundreds of millions that they're sitting
> on, recurring revenues that are totally set by their fiat, and the
> rest of us will have zip.  Any questions?
>
>         John Gilmore
>         (speaking for myself, not for the Electronic Frontier Foundation)
>
> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Image 
> removed by sender. 
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3>| 
> Modify 
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308> 
> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now 
> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20150527190840:4BEADCFA-04C5-11E5-AA9B-E26F2882AD14> 
>
>
> 	
>
> Image removed by sender. <http://www.listbox.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/20150528/8831faef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150528/8831faef/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 May 28 21:41:20 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:41:20 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <CF50E28585184AFAA4BBC8D7F48AB245@Toshiba> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org>

Replying just to the IGC list in respect of the suggestion that the IGC could host this McCarthy Committee on civil society funding and transparency, I doubt that there is any consensus that it should do this, and the IGC cannot act in its absence.

I for one cannot imagine a scenario in which this would not do much more harm than good. There had already been much negative fallout from JNC members interrogating others on this list and the Best Bits lists by about their funding and demanding they take particular accountability and transparency measures. We could not withstand another such inquisition without a foundation of mutual trust and respect, which frankly will take much time to rebuild, beginning with an adjustment in attitude from the inquisitioners. 

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

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

> On May 28, 2015, at 4:39 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ian
> 
> Responding to the two issues you raise. 
> 
>> On Monday 25 May 2015 12:27 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> Hi Parminder,
>>  
>> Two issues in response to your suggestion.
>>  
>> Firstly, the suggestion that CSCG do this. CSCG consists of five people who are pretty busy co-ordinating coalitions of CS organisations (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) and myself as an independent chair. The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside organisations.  It has no staff, no funding, not even a formal charter.  In order to address some of the issues it faces I have suggested from time to time  that the membership be expanded to include say 3 more respected civil society people who are not formal representatives of coalitions of CS organisations. The last time I suggested this it was met with some strongly worded negative responses from JNC and I have not heard of any change of position on this. So for these reasons I don’t think CSCG is the right organisation to take on this task. Perhaps IGC?
> 
> I suggested CSCG bec it has reps from major CS networks and so there was a common ownership over what should be a commonly owned and directed initiative so that there is scope of bias, and appropriate avenues of recourse exist. I still think CSCG the right body for it, but IGC would do as well. As for resources, let me make this blind offer, I will try and raise resources for one person devoting her half/ quarter time, who can be housed in a reputed org with a neutral image, for this purpose. More resources are needed initially for setting it up, but once set up it wont require much. I still do not know from where id seek resources but I am confident that with so much funds coming into the IG space someone somewhere would give a few thousand dollars for overall transparency and accountability in the sector. That should address and settle the resources argument in terms of my proposal. 
>  
>>  
>> Secondly, I wonder how it would work in CS which has so many people who are basically acting as individuals rather than representatives of organisations. Many if not most of us also have non CS affiliations (eg membership of ISOC, business or governmental employees if we are cs volunteers, academic postings etc) so the “pure” CS rep is probably a bit hard to find. I am not sure what we would gain by having a register of all our multiple affiliations which would need regular updating to be of any use.  I think we need to ensure our major coalitions (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) act transparently, and by and large I think they do. But I am             not sure of the value of extending this to what is probably tens of thousands of members or organisations affiliated with these larger groups.
> 
> Almost all CS transparency and accountability initiatives are focussed on organisations and not individuals, bec of the obvious reasons that the former have a greater role and impact. One  may not need such processes for individuals, other than perhaps when any nominations or appointments are being on behalf of civil society , in which case anyone would agree  that some basic declarations should in any case be necessary, and such simple and basic decelerations alone are what my proposed initiative asks for.  
> 
>>  
>> Over to others to discuss. I am not opposed to the suggestion that something be done in this area,  but I think we need to refine any such idea somewhat,
> 
> Please give suggestions.
> 
>> and if the aim is somehow to enhance CS credibility and transparency in this space, perhaps we should also discuss what other measures might also assist this.
> 
> And for this as well.
> 
> Thanks again. parminder 
>>  
>> Ian Peter
>>  
>> From: parminder
>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:31 PM
>> To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; BestBitsList                   ; mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing space for the APC Community.
>> Subject: [governance] Civil society transparency
>>  
>> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) ,
>> 
>> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .
>> 
>> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its               funding, partners, and so on.... 
>> 
>> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.
>> 
>> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is               done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.
>> 
>> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria.
>> 
>> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we               should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach. 
>> 
>> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..
>> 
>> parminder 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150528/9ac560cc/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  Fri May 29 02:13:06 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 07:13:06 +0100
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
Message-ID: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com>

As I watch along with I'm sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am
of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN,
particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global
non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.

 

So, I'm wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning
ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being
exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything will
be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?

 

M 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150529/13d824a9/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  Fri May 29 02:17:22 2015
From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (Dr Yassin Mshana)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 08:17:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
In-Reply-To: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com>
References: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM2OVBrj55dHLOqp5emmeNF0bO+zA2OuW5t5ybcLyRDrYcU=9g@mail.gmail.com>

+1
On 29 May 2015 08:13, "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> As I watch along with I’m sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am
> of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN,
> particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global
> non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.
>
>
>
> So, I’m wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning
> ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being
> exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything
> will be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?
>
>
>
> 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/20150529/27f8801a/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 May 29 03:06:16 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:06:16 +0800
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
In-Reply-To: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com>
References: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D10BC1AC-89D3-44F4-AF7B-82B71423DCF3@difference.com.au>

Obviously those who are more familiar with ICANN and FIFA would probably point out that the parallels are really not very strong. They are both international organisations that are non-government, but otherwise they are very different. FIFA is an association of national associations, ICANN is not.

But it is a timely reminder for the need for strong accountability mechanisms. Which is probably why many of the ICANN engaged people on this list have been relatively quiet over the last year, as many of them have been involved either with the IANA transition (which has been very much concerned with structural accountability issues - how ICANN can be made responsible to those who, directly or indirectly, use IANA) or the accompanying accountability process (which is focussed on broader accountability issues with ICANN).
(I myself have not been strongly involved with those processes, but I know Avri, Robin, Milton, and others have been spending many hours every week, which is probably why I sometimes have time to respond to cheap shots like this one).

But if you’d like a few lessons that might be drawn:
direct voting on a national representative basis is absolutely no defence against corruption.
>From which we might presume that accountability and transparency are more important factors in preventing corruption. Perhaps JNC might consider shifting its focus from games about the word ‘democracy’ and focus on the practical push for the accountability and transparency mechanisms that are a vital part of any democratic process.

Regards

	David





> On 29 May 2015, at 2:13 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> As I watch along with I’m sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN, particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.
> 
> So, I’m wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything will be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?
> 
> 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/20150529/ff48d171/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/20150529/ff48d171/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 ymshana2003 at gmail.com  Fri May 29 03:25:18 2015
From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (Dr Yassin Mshana)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 09:25:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
In-Reply-To: <D10BC1AC-89D3-44F4-AF7B-82B71423DCF3@difference.com.au>
References: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com>
	<D10BC1AC-89D3-44F4-AF7B-82B71423DCF3@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAM2OVBpn+esi1gmSfYuzB3mQ-i6dqzcvx-_XO_ge913Gv7UvgQ@mail.gmail.com>

A 'cheap' explanation to David in this is that, both are responsible for
the management of activities and funds sourced from the international
community as the stakeholders..
Kind regards.
Yassin
On 29 May 2015 09:06, "David Cake" <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> Obviously those who are more familiar with ICANN and FIFA would probably
> point out that the parallels are really not very strong. They are both
> international organisations that are non-government, but otherwise they are
> very different. FIFA is an association of national associations, ICANN is
> not.
>
> But it is a timely reminder for the need for strong accountability
> mechanisms. Which is probably why many of the ICANN engaged people on this
> list have been relatively quiet over the last year, as many of them have
> been involved either with the IANA transition (which has been very much
> concerned with structural accountability issues - how ICANN can be made
> responsible to those who, directly or indirectly, use IANA) or the
> accompanying accountability process (which is focussed on broader
> accountability issues with ICANN).
> (I myself have not been strongly involved with those processes, but I know
> Avri, Robin, Milton, and others have been spending many hours every week,
> which is probably why I sometimes have time to respond to cheap shots like
> this one).
>
> But if you’d like a few lessons that might be drawn:
> direct voting on a national representative basis is absolutely no defence
> against corruption.
> From which we might presume that accountability and transparency are more
> important factors in preventing corruption. Perhaps JNC might consider
> shifting its focus from games about the word ‘democracy’ and focus on the
> practical push for the accountability and transparency mechanisms that are
> a vital part of any democratic process.
>
> Regards
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29 May 2015, at 2:13 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As I watch along with I’m sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am
> of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN,
> particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global
> non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.
>
> So, I’m wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning
> ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being
> exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything
> will be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?
>
> 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/20150529/318581d5/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  Fri May 29 03:26:06 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 09:26:06 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
References: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com>
 <D10BC1AC-89D3-44F4-AF7B-82B71423DCF3@difference.com.au>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EF3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi,

one lesson is that the service a group delivers has to be linked to strong accountability mechanism. Insofar, ICANNs Accountability discussion, which has started last year as an open, transparent and bottom up process with the involvement of all stakeholders is a key for ICANN´s future and the good service people expect from ICANN. BTW, FIFA operates under Swiss jurisdiction. ;-(((.

Wolfgang



:------Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von David Cake
Gesendet: Fr 29.05.2015 09:06
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
 
Obviously those who are more familiar with ICANN and FIFA would probably point out that the parallels are really not very strong. They are both international organisations that are non-government, but otherwise they are very different. FIFA is an association of national associations, ICANN is not.

But it is a timely reminder for the need for strong accountability mechanisms. Which is probably why many of the ICANN engaged people on this list have been relatively quiet over the last year, as many of them have been involved either with the IANA transition (which has been very much concerned with structural accountability issues - how ICANN can be made responsible to those who, directly or indirectly, use IANA) or the accompanying accountability process (which is focussed on broader accountability issues with ICANN).
(I myself have not been strongly involved with those processes, but I know Avri, Robin, Milton, and others have been spending many hours every week, which is probably why I sometimes have time to respond to cheap shots like this one).

But if you'd like a few lessons that might be drawn:
direct voting on a national representative basis is absolutely no defence against corruption.
>From which we might presume that accountability and transparency are more important factors in preventing corruption. Perhaps JNC might consider shifting its focus from games about the word 'democracy' and focus on the practical push for the accountability and transparency mechanisms that are a vital part of any democratic process.

Regards

	David





> On 29 May 2015, at 2:13 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> As I watch along with I'm sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN, particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.
> 
> So, I'm wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything will be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?
> 
> 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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Fri May 29 03:55:09 2015
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 09:55:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EF3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com> <D10BC1AC-89D3-44F4-AF7B-82B71423DCF3@difference.com.au> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EF3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <297D1775-247E-4AC3-9CAF-73D16A894876@gmail.com>

- Wolfang,
> Corruption belongs not to a legal system, would it be Swiss or US - not sure why you point at Swiss law, and not Californian law: that contains a very odd understatement.
> Corruption has many forms and since 1998 ICANN has proved it was not able to bring a straight record on this, by far. Let's spare the e-list with an inventory. And let's not to mention its regrettable submission to US dominance (not fair to non US)
> The attribution of the gTLD ".ngo" to PIR(=>ISOC =>ICANN) is highly questionable. Some could come to the conclusion this gTLD has been given in a fashion that is perfect example of what FIFA should not be doing (sorry ICANN).

- Jeremy
> Corruption can be found anywhere including in the non profit sector, and in civil society. The call by JNC regarding transparency is most legitimate and needed. In a previous email you mention accountability, which is a very different topic, and your comment was rather out of scope. JNC's call should be addressed by the participants.
> I appreciate you to ask JNC to consult a shrink for "behavioral treatment". I think all JNC members will also appreciate the idea that they are the new inquisitioners, or the new McCarthys. After calling us "dicks" and other niceties, I do wonder who needs to consult a medic first. I find your last email exactly doing what you ask other not to do. Toxic writing? More seriously, I ask the moderator of the IGC list to tell us what they think about such statements by a subscriber. FORMAL REQUEST.

- David (Cake)
> Corruption has little to do with a system based on national representation. Study, source? I mean more than within the private sector, or any other space.
> Thanks for acknowledging that "accountability and TRANSPARENCY are important factors". Maybe Jeremy should talk to you about this, as he has difficulties to talk to JNC about such critical issue.
> JNC focusing on games at "democracy"? JNC has called for more transparency among participants to the current IG space: would that be playing game or would it be "focusing on the practical push for accountability..." Not sure who is getting confused here.
> JNC has been fighting over the introduction of a democratic pulse within IG. I see JNC has deserving recognition for that. Is fighting for democratic principles within a social community of public interest (IG) a "game", or isn't more simply part of the political debate (democracy) and the need for a different Internet governance (out of US domination by its public and private leadership)

Everyone can take the lessons he wants to take.

JC






Le 29 mai 2015 à 09:26, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> one lesson is that the service a group delivers has to be linked to strong accountability mechanism. Insofar, ICANNs Accountability discussion, which has started last year as an open, transparent and bottom up process with the involvement of all stakeholders is a key for ICANN´s future and the good service people expect from ICANN. BTW, FIFA operates under Swiss jurisdiction. ;-(((.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> :------Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von David Cake
> Gesendet: Fr 29.05.2015 09:06
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
> Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
> 
> Obviously those who are more familiar with ICANN and FIFA would probably point out that the parallels are really not very strong. They are both international organisations that are non-government, but otherwise they are very different. FIFA is an association of national associations, ICANN is not.
> 
> But it is a timely reminder for the need for strong accountability mechanisms. Which is probably why many of the ICANN engaged people on this list have been relatively quiet over the last year, as many of them have been involved either with the IANA transition (which has been very much concerned with structural accountability issues - how ICANN can be made responsible to those who, directly or indirectly, use IANA) or the accompanying accountability process (which is focussed on broader accountability issues with ICANN).
> (I myself have not been strongly involved with those processes, but I know Avri, Robin, Milton, and others have been spending many hours every week, which is probably why I sometimes have time to respond to cheap shots like this one).
> 
> But if you'd like a few lessons that might be drawn:
> direct voting on a national representative basis is absolutely no defence against corruption.
> From which we might presume that accountability and transparency are more important factors in preventing corruption. Perhaps JNC might consider shifting its focus from games about the word 'democracy' and focus on the practical push for the accountability and transparency mechanisms that are a vital part of any democratic process.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 	David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 29 May 2015, at 2:13 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> As I watch along with I'm sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN, particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.
>> 
>> So, I'm wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything will be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?
>> 
>> 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/20150529/b2adfae6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri May 29 05:09:07 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 19:09:07 +1000
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
In-Reply-To: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com>
References: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <98277959819249DCAD4B4620072C4ACB@Toshiba>

The main parallel I can see is that both football and the internet will continue largely unaffected by the political goings-on in either FIFA or ICANN. 

From: Michael Gurstein 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:13 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA

As I watch along with I’m sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN, particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.

 

So, I’m wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything will be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?

 

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/20150529/956782df/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 May 29 05:44:33 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 17:44:33 +0800
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
In-Reply-To: <297D1775-247E-4AC3-9CAF-73D16A894876@gmail.com>
References: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com> <D10BC1AC-89D3-44F4-AF7B-82B71423DCF3@difference.com.au> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EF3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <297D1775-247E-4AC3-9CAF-73D16A894876@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F3E5EEA2-FE8F-4F00-8923-BBEA94570B21@difference.com.au>


> On 29 May 2015, at 3:55 pm, Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
> - David (Cake)
> > Corruption has little to do with a system based on national representation. Study, source? I mean more than within the private sector, or any other space.

	I was simply pointing out that FIFA is based on a system of direct voting based on national representatives. In this it somewhat loosely resembles, say, some ITU processes, more so than multi-stakeholder processes. I’m simply saying that neither recorded direct voting or a system based only on gatekeepered national representatives have prevented significant corruption in this case.
	Some prominent JNC members have been quite explicit in saying that they prefer the UN or ITU model, in which ultimate decision making, and in particular selection of senior officials, goes to a direct ballot in which each nation has a single vote. Notably FIFA uses a similar model. And is allegedly, despite a massive corruption scandal, about to re-select the same leadership. In particular, an administration very unpopular with large nations in Western Europe (though popular with some other large nations, like Russia) is likely to be re-elected by votes from a large number of small nations. I’m not implying that the voting model always leads to flawed results (of course there are many other factors), but FIFA certainly represents an obvious counter-example to claims it prevents corruption, and has some parallels to criticisms often made of UN processes.

	In short, if there is, as Michael contends, some lesson to be learnt from FIFA in regards to the IANA transition and ICANN it is this - be wary of a 1 vote per nation, UN style, model, as if anything it increases accountability and transparency issues. Those of us within ICANN have already seen this time and again in the ICANN GAC.

> > Thanks for acknowledging that "accountability and TRANSPARENCY are important factors". Maybe Jeremy should talk to you about this, as he has difficulties to talk to JNC about such critical issue.

	Within ICANN, transparency per se is an issue, but the biggest transparency issue is accountability not transparency - transparency standards are generally quite high, but the accountability mechanisms are lacking to enforce them when they are really needed. In most ICANN policy processes, every meeting is open to anyone to listen, is recorded, recordings and transcripts are made available, every full participant has lodged an SOI, and so one. But yet when you might to find out which senior staff member made a particular dubious decision, suddenly the staff will have difficulty finding those documents or similar.
	I don’t think this invalidates Jeremy’s critique of Parminders plan. NGOs are participants, not management. I agree the suggested mechanism through CSCG is inappropriate. I think there are other, more appropriate, mechanisms for NGO transparency. And like many others, I suspect that the results of the process will be an excuse for the JNC to continue to focus on matters internal to CS, lambasting those of us who dare to be funded by those Parminder dislikes (the US government and corporations), if anything actively interfering with the ability of CS to actively engage in the IG space. Not that I think transparency is bad - my own org publishes its accounts, as do many others - but it seems a poorly thought out proposal that puts the focus on the wrong place (on the ‘purity’ of CS participants, rather than accountability and transparency within IG decision making processes themselves).

> > JNC focusing on games at "democracy"? JNC has called for more transparency among participants to the current IG space: would that be playing game or would it be "focusing on the practical push for accountability..." Not sure who is getting confused here.

	I was assuming we all had the level of perspective to consider discussions had within, say, the last couple of months. Or even, when discussing the IANA transition process, to understand that I was referring to actions made over the entire IANA transition process, not comments made on the IGC list on a different topic in the last few days. Apparently not. So let me clarify - when I was talking about accountability, I was referring specifically to accountability of ICANN/IANA, that being the topic Michael brought up, not the accountability of civil society organisations, that being an entirely different subject brought up by Parminder.
	FWIW, I find it sadly quite typical of the dynamics of this list that we have had so very little discussion of the accountability aspects of IANA and ICANN here (major, significant efforts


> > JNC has been fighting over the introduction of a democratic pulse within IG.

	Wel, they’ve certainly been fighting over the inclusion of the word ‘democracy’ in some statements. Whether or not that amounts to the same thing as ‘introduction of a democratic pulse’ is probably something on which there is significant disagreement.

> I see JNC has deserving recognition for that. Is fighting for democratic principles within a social community of public interest (IG) a "game", or isn't more simply part of the political debate (democracy) and the need for a different Internet governance (out of US domination by its public and private leadership)

	Or perhaps JNC is fighting to have democratic principles interpreted in the means of its choosing. I certainly feel that I am fighting for democratic principles (or at least, transparency, accountability, inclusion, openness, and human rights), but most JNC members seem to feel that I am misguided and should perhaps be fighting for things such as a stronger representation of government (in the hopes that that naturally equates to democracy), or processes that are less inclusive of actors they dislike (such as those representing commercial interests).

> Everyone can take the lessons he wants to take.

	Indeed.

	David
> 
> JC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 29 mai 2015 à 09:26, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> one lesson is that the service a group delivers has to be linked to strong accountability mechanism. Insofar, ICANNs Accountability discussion, which has started last year as an open, transparent and bottom up process with the involvement of all stakeholders is a key for ICANN´s future and the good service people expect from ICANN. BTW, FIFA operates under Swiss jurisdiction. ;-(((.
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> :------Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> im Auftrag von David Cake
>> Gesendet: Fr 29.05.2015 09:06
>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Michael Gurstein
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
>> 
>> Obviously those who are more familiar with ICANN and FIFA would probably point out that the parallels are really not very strong. They are both international organisations that are non-government, but otherwise they are very different. FIFA is an association of national associations, ICANN is not.
>> 
>> But it is a timely reminder for the need for strong accountability mechanisms. Which is probably why many of the ICANN engaged people on this list have been relatively quiet over the last year, as many of them have been involved either with the IANA transition (which has been very much concerned with structural accountability issues - how ICANN can be made responsible to those who, directly or indirectly, use IANA) or the accompanying accountability process (which is focussed on broader accountability issues with ICANN).
>> (I myself have not been strongly involved with those processes, but I know Avri, Robin, Milton, and others have been spending many hours every week, which is probably why I sometimes have time to respond to cheap shots like this one).
>> 
>> But if you'd like a few lessons that might be drawn:
>> direct voting on a national representative basis is absolutely no defence against corruption.
>> From which we might presume that accountability and transparency are more important factors in preventing corruption. Perhaps JNC might consider shifting its focus from games about the word 'democracy' and focus on the practical push for the accountability and transparency mechanisms that are a vital part of any democratic process.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> 	David
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 29 May 2015, at 2:13 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As I watch along with I'm sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN, particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.
>>> 
>>> So, I'm wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything will be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?
>>> 
>>> 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 <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 <mailto: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/20150529/9da01c3c/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/20150529/9da01c3c/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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Fri May 29 08:12:47 2015
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:12:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
In-Reply-To: <F3E5EEA2-FE8F-4F00-8923-BBEA94570B21@difference.com.au>
References: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com> <D10BC1AC-89D3-44F4-AF7B-82B71423DCF3@difference.com.au> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EF3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <297D1775-247E-4AC3-9CAF-73D16A894876@gmail.com> <F3E5EEA2-FE8F-4F00-8923-BBEA94570B21@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <6ECDAAB6-B26D-4416-900F-6BDE6184E58D@gmail.com>

David,

The parallel between FIFA and ICANN has a lot of limitations. However, one common ground relates to the fact that 
ICANN collects money throughout the domain name business, (registar/registries) a pairing that has no fundamental necessity. So for each single yearly domain name fee, ICANN gets its cents. FIFA is funding with a similar toll worldwide over each individual soccer player's license. The new TLD business by ICANN was of no necessity in terms of covering the expenditure to handle the DNS/Domain Name eco-system. I am still wondering why, except for paying outsiders, stakeholders, civil society participants, conferences and meetings to defend a state of de facto dominance for the big players, we have to go into such a racket. Moreover, one racket that comes at a very heavy price, introducing a very discriminatory fashion to end-user. Auctioning domain names is simply not acceptable.
When one think of alternative roots, such as open root - dns, domain name management system competitor to ICANN - you pay for a domain name for life. Not every year. As we all know the TLDs files are rather small.

Agree with your point concerning ICANN, when it comes to accountability. But the point made by JNC was made when thinking of civil society participants (that would have multiple hats for example).

Whatever critique is made to Parminder (and JNC) proposal regarding transparency, why don't you come with a serious alternative? Unless you think this is not a serious concern. As Jeremy puts it bluntly, such a process might do more arm than good. Amusing to think that transparency is having a negative impact (on what by the way?) So if poorly thought, please provide a brightly thought scheme.

Lambasting is not was is happening. Questioning the way we act as CS, is not lambasting. It is fair to all, and to people CS is supposedly representing (even poorly).

And inlines here
> > JNC has been fighting over the introduction of a democratic pulse within IG.
	
	Wel, they’ve certainly been fighting over the inclusion of the word ‘democracy’ in some statements. Whether or not that amounts to the same thing as ‘introduction of a democratic pulse’ is probably something on which there is significant disagreement. 

JC: Any questioning welcome. Inserting the word "democracy", as we have real difficulties to have people stepping out of the multistakeholder sandbox, is already a small achieving. But since Delhi Declaration, JNC has brought together more people, and more awareness regarding core issues in IG. The Internet Social Forum is part of that effort and we should all consider a positive and open outcome. 

> I see JNC has deserving recognition for that. Is fighting for democratic principles within a social community of public interest (IG) a "game", or isn't more simply part of the political debate (democracy) and the need for a different Internet governance (out of US domination by its public and private leadership)

	Or perhaps JNC is fighting to have democratic principles interpreted in the means of its choosing. I certainly feel that I am fighting for democratic principles (or at least, transparency, accountability, inclusion, openness, and human rights), but most JNC members seem to feel that I am misguided and should perhaps be fighting for things such as a stronger representation of government (in the hopes that that naturally equates to democracy), or processes that are less inclusive of actors they dislike (such as those representing commercial interests). 

JC: I do respect your fighting for democratic principles. However I do not recognize JNC in the way you characterize it : a stronger representation of govs would equate to more democracy does not mean that govs should take control. JNC has made a simple assumption that it was not acceptable that the tenants of the current IG space (vested interests) would grant themselves an equal footing right with representatives of people's across the planet when it comes to public interest decision making. So far, except a few of us, including myself before the Sao Paulo conference, few have offered/drafted a concrete alternative to the current IG current de facto governance of the Internet. Maybe we should ask ourselves why the call for paper to suggest a roadmap for an alternative IG system before Sao Paulo was never discussed, elaborated, followed-up. This roadmap is still the BIGGEST pending question in the IG space. For many this could only lead to a "nice" conclusion: the status quo is fine, and the transition of IANA from ICANN/DoC to ICANN by ICANN is just the best way to emancipate and internationalize the governance of the Internet. 

A big joke indeed, and another lesson not taken.



JC
Le 29 mai 2015 à 11:44, David Cake a écrit :

> 
>> On 29 May 2015, at 3:55 pm, Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
>> - David (Cake)
>> > Corruption has little to do with a system based on national representation. Study, source? I mean more than within the private sector, or any other space.
> 
> 	I was simply pointing out that FIFA is based on a system of direct voting based on national representatives. In this it somewhat loosely resembles, say, some ITU processes,


> more so than multi-stakeholder processes. I’m simply saying that neither recorded direct voting or a system based only on gatekeepered national representatives have prevented significant corruption in this case. 
> 	Some prominent JNC members have been quite explicit in saying that they prefer the UN or ITU model, in which ultimate decision making, and in particular selection of senior officials, goes to a direct ballot in which each nation has a single vote. Notably FIFA uses a similar model. And is allegedly, despite a massive corruption scandal, about to re-select the same leadership. In particular, an administration very unpopular with large nations in Western Europe (though popular with some other large nations, like Russia) is likely to be re-elected by votes from a large number of small nations. I’m not implying that the voting model always leads to flawed results (of course there are many other factors), but FIFA certainly represents an obvious counter-example to claims it prevents corruption, and has some parallels to criticisms often made of UN processes. 
> 
> 	In short, if there is, as Michael contends, some lesson to be learnt from FIFA in regards to the IANA transition and ICANN it is this - be wary of a 1 vote per nation, UN style, model, as if anything it increases accountability and transparency issues. Those of us within ICANN have already seen this time and again in the ICANN GAC. 


> 
>> > Thanks for acknowledging that "accountability and TRANSPARENCY are important factors". Maybe Jeremy should talk to you about this, as he has difficulties to talk to JNC about such critical issue.
> 
> 	Within ICANN, transparency per se is an issue, but the biggest transparency issue is accountability not transparency - transparency standards are generally quite high, but the accountability mechanisms are lacking to enforce them when they are really needed. In most ICANN policy processes, every meeting is open to anyone to listen, is recorded, recordings and transcripts are made available, every full participant has lodged an SOI, and so one. But yet when you might to find out which senior staff member made a particular dubious decision, suddenly the staff will have difficulty finding those documents or similar. 
> 	I don’t think this invalidates Jeremy’s critique of Parminders plan. NGOs are participants, not management. I agree the suggested mechanism through CSCG is inappropriate. I think there are other, more appropriate, mechanisms for NGO transparency. And like many others, I suspect that the results of the process will be an excuse for the JNC to continue to focus on matters internal to CS, lambasting those of us who dare to be funded by those Parminder dislikes (the US government and corporations), if anything actively interfering with the ability of CS to actively engage in the IG space. Not that I think transparency is bad - my own org publishes its accounts, as do many others - but it seems a poorly thought out proposal that puts the focus on the wrong place (on the ‘purity’ of CS participants, rather than accountability and transparency within IG decision making processes themselves). 
> 
>> > JNC focusing on games at "democracy"? JNC has called for more transparency among participants to the current IG space: would that be playing game or would it be "focusing on the practical push for accountability..." Not sure who is getting confused here.
> 
> 	I was assuming we all had the level of perspective to consider discussions had within, say, the last couple of months. Or even, when discussing the IANA transition process, to understand that I was referring to actions made over the entire IANA transition process, not comments made on the IGC list on a different topic in the last few days. Apparently not. So let me clarify - when I was talking about accountability, I was referring specifically to accountability of ICANN/IANA, that being the topic Michael brought up, not the accountability of civil society organisations, that being an entirely different subject brought up by Parminder. 
> 	FWIW, I find it sadly quite typical of the dynamics of this list that we have had so very little discussion of the accountability aspects of IANA and ICANN here (major, significant efforts
> 	
> 
>> > JNC has been fighting over the introduction of a democratic pulse within IG.
> 	
> 	Wel, they’ve certainly been fighting over the inclusion of the word ‘democracy’ in some statements. Whether or not that amounts to the same thing as ‘introduction of a democratic pulse’ is probably something on which there is significant disagreement. 
> 
>> I see JNC has deserving recognition for that. Is fighting for democratic principles within a social community of public interest (IG) a "game", or isn't more simply part of the political debate (democracy) and the need for a different Internet governance (out of US domination by its public and private leadership)
> 
> 	Or perhaps JNC is fighting to have democratic principles interpreted in the means of its choosing. I certainly feel that I am fighting for democratic principles (or at least, transparency, accountability, inclusion, openness, and human rights), but most JNC members seem to feel that I am misguided and should perhaps be fighting for things such as a stronger representation of government (in the hopes that that naturally equates to democracy), or processes that are less inclusive of actors they dislike (such as those representing commercial interests). 
> 
>> Everyone can take the lessons he wants to take.
> 
> 	Indeed. 
> 	
> 	David
>> 
>> JC
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 29 mai 2015 à 09:26, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> one lesson is that the service a group delivers has to be linked to strong accountability mechanism. Insofar, ICANNs Accountability discussion, which has started last year as an open, transparent and bottom up process with the involvement of all stakeholders is a key for ICANN´s future and the good service people expect from ICANN. BTW, FIFA operates under Swiss jurisdiction. ;-(((.
>>> 
>>> Wolfgang
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> :------Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von David Cake
>>> Gesendet: Fr 29.05.2015 09:06
>>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
>>> 
>>> Obviously those who are more familiar with ICANN and FIFA would probably point out that the parallels are really not very strong. They are both international organisations that are non-government, but otherwise they are very different. FIFA is an association of national associations, ICANN is not.
>>> 
>>> But it is a timely reminder for the need for strong accountability mechanisms. Which is probably why many of the ICANN engaged people on this list have been relatively quiet over the last year, as many of them have been involved either with the IANA transition (which has been very much concerned with structural accountability issues - how ICANN can be made responsible to those who, directly or indirectly, use IANA) or the accompanying accountability process (which is focussed on broader accountability issues with ICANN).
>>> (I myself have not been strongly involved with those processes, but I know Avri, Robin, Milton, and others have been spending many hours every week, which is probably why I sometimes have time to respond to cheap shots like this one).
>>> 
>>> But if you'd like a few lessons that might be drawn:
>>> direct voting on a national representative basis is absolutely no defence against corruption.
>>> From which we might presume that accountability and transparency are more important factors in preventing corruption. Perhaps JNC might consider shifting its focus from games about the word 'democracy' and focus on the practical push for the accountability and transparency mechanisms that are a vital part of any democratic process.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> 	David
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 29 May 2015, at 2:13 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> As I watch along with I'm sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN, particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.
>>>> 
>>>> So, I'm wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything will be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?
>>>> 
>>>> M
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your 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/20150529/672d759c/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  Fri May 29 08:28:21 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:28:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
In-Reply-To: <F3E5EEA2-FE8F-4F00-8923-BBEA94570B21@difference.com.au>
References: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com> <D10BC1AC-89D3-44F4-AF7B-82B71423DCF3@difference.com.au> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642EF3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <297D1775-247E-4AC3-9CAF-73D16A894876@gmail.com> <F3E5EEA2-FE8F-4F00-8923-BBEA94570B21@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <023501d09a0a$f414aad0$dc3e0070$@gmail.com>

I would have thought the interesting issue to address is how corruption
flourishes in systems where accountability is only through and to insiders
and where those insiders control very significant resources which they can
use corruptly or no to manipulate the systems to ensure their impunity and
continuity—i.e. closed loops with no external structures of accountability
(as for example are achievable in many instances through effective
democratic processes). If the shoes fit, perhaps they should be worn.

 

The peroration’s concerning the ITU, the UN and uncle Tom Cobley are of
course complete red herrings.

 

M

 

David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: May 29, 2015 10:45 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Christophe Nothias
Cc: Michael Gurstein; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN/FIFA

 

 

On 29 May 2015, at 3:55 pm, Jean-Christophe Nothias
<jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com <mailto:jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com>
> wrote:

- David (Cake)

> Corruption has little to do with a system based on national
representation. Study, source? I mean more than within the private sector,
or any other space.

 

            I was simply pointing out that FIFA is based on a system of
direct voting based on national representatives. In this it somewhat loosely
resembles, say, some ITU processes, more so than multi-stakeholder
processes. I’m simply saying that neither recorded direct voting or a system
based only on gatekeepered national representatives have prevented
significant corruption in this case. 

            Some prominent JNC members have been quite explicit in saying
that they prefer the UN or ITU model, in which ultimate decision making, and
in particular selection of senior officials, goes to a direct ballot in
which each nation has a single vote. Notably FIFA uses a similar model. And
is allegedly, despite a massive corruption scandal, about to re-select the
same leadership. In particular, an administration very unpopular with large
nations in Western Europe (though popular with some other large nations,
like Russia) is likely to be re-elected by votes from a large number of
small nations. I’m not implying that the voting model always leads to flawed
results (of course there are many other factors), but FIFA certainly
represents an obvious counter-example to claims it prevents corruption, and
has some parallels to criticisms often made of UN processes. 

 

            In short, if there is, as Michael contends, some lesson to be
learnt from FIFA in regards to the IANA transition and ICANN it is this - be
wary of a 1 vote per nation, UN style, model, as if anything it increases
accountability and transparency issues. Those of us within ICANN have
already seen this time and again in the ICANN GAC. 





> Thanks for acknowledging that "accountability and TRANSPARENCY are
important factors". Maybe Jeremy should talk to you about this, as he has
difficulties to talk to JNC about such critical issue.

 

            Within ICANN, transparency per se is an issue, but the biggest
transparency issue is accountability not transparency - transparency
standards are generally quite high, but the accountability mechanisms are
lacking to enforce them when they are really needed. In most ICANN policy
processes, every meeting is open to anyone to listen, is recorded,
recordings and transcripts are made available, every full participant has
lodged an SOI, and so one. But yet when you might to find out which senior
staff member made a particular dubious decision, suddenly the staff will
have difficulty finding those documents or similar. 

            I don’t think this invalidates Jeremy’s critique of Parminders
plan. NGOs are participants, not management. I agree the suggested mechanism
through CSCG is inappropriate. I think there are other, more appropriate,
mechanisms for NGO transparency. And like many others, I suspect that the
results of the process will be an excuse for the JNC to continue to focus on
matters internal to CS, lambasting those of us who dare to be funded by
those Parminder dislikes (the US government and corporations), if anything
actively interfering with the ability of CS to actively engage in the IG
space. Not that I think transparency is bad - my own org publishes its
accounts, as do many others - but it seems a poorly thought out proposal
that puts the focus on the wrong place (on the ‘purity’ of CS participants,
rather than accountability and transparency within IG decision making
processes themselves). 





> JNC focusing on games at "democracy"? JNC has called for more transparency
among participants to the current IG space: would that be playing game or
would it be "focusing on the practical push for accountability..." Not sure
who is getting confused here.

 

            I was assuming we all had the level of perspective to consider
discussions had within, say, the last couple of months. Or even, when
discussing the IANA transition process, to understand that I was referring
to actions made over the entire IANA transition process, not comments made
on the IGC list on a different topic in the last few days. Apparently not.
So let me clarify - when I was talking about accountability, I was referring
specifically to accountability of ICANN/IANA, that being the topic Michael
brought up, not the accountability of civil society organisations, that
being an entirely different subject brought up by Parminder. 

            FWIW, I find it sadly quite typical of the dynamics of this list
that we have had so very little discussion of the accountability aspects of
IANA and ICANN here (major, significant efforts

            

 

> JNC has been fighting over the introduction of a democratic pulse within
IG.

            

            Wel, they’ve certainly been fighting over the inclusion of the
word ‘democracy’ in some statements. Whether or not that amounts to the same
thing as ‘introduction of a democratic pulse’ is probably something on which
there is significant disagreement. 





I see JNC has deserving recognition for that. Is fighting for democratic
principles within a social community of public interest (IG) a "game", or
isn't more simply part of the political debate (democracy) and the need for
a different Internet governance (out of US domination by its public and
private leadership)

 

            Or perhaps JNC is fighting to have democratic principles
interpreted in the means of its choosing. I certainly feel that I am
fighting for democratic principles (or at least, transparency,
accountability, inclusion, openness, and human rights), but most JNC members
seem to feel that I am misguided and should perhaps be fighting for things
such as a stronger representation of government (in the hopes that that
naturally equates to democracy), or processes that are less inclusive of
actors they dislike (such as those representing commercial interests). 





Everyone can take the lessons he wants to take.

 

            Indeed. 

            

            David



 

JC

 

 

 

 

 

 

Le 29 mai 2015 à 09:26, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :





Hi,

one lesson is that the service a group delivers has to be linked to strong
accountability mechanism. Insofar, ICANNs Accountability discussion, which
has started last year as an open, transparent and bottom up process with the
involvement of all stakeholders is a key for ICANN´s future and the good
service people expect from ICANN. BTW, FIFA operates under Swiss
jurisdiction. ;-(((.

Wolfgang



:------Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>  im Auftrag von David Cake
Gesendet: Fr 29.05.2015 09:06
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ;
Michael Gurstein
Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN/FIFA

Obviously those who are more familiar with ICANN and FIFA would probably
point out that the parallels are really not very strong. They are both
international organisations that are non-government, but otherwise they are
very different. FIFA is an association of national associations, ICANN is
not.

But it is a timely reminder for the need for strong accountability
mechanisms. Which is probably why many of the ICANN engaged people on this
list have been relatively quiet over the last year, as many of them have
been involved either with the IANA transition (which has been very much
concerned with structural accountability issues - how ICANN can be made
responsible to those who, directly or indirectly, use IANA) or the
accompanying accountability process (which is focussed on broader
accountability issues with ICANN).
(I myself have not been strongly involved with those processes, but I know
Avri, Robin, Milton, and others have been spending many hours every week,
which is probably why I sometimes have time to respond to cheap shots like
this one).

But if you'd like a few lessons that might be drawn:
direct voting on a national representative basis is absolutely no defence
against corruption.
>From which we might presume that accountability and transparency are more
important factors in preventing corruption. Perhaps JNC might consider
shifting its focus from games about the word 'democracy' and focus on the
practical push for the accountability and transparency mechanisms that are a
vital part of any democratic process.

Regards

            David








On 29 May 2015, at 2:13 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:

 

As I watch along with I'm sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am
of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN,
particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global
non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.

 

So, I'm wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning
ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being
exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything will
be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?

 

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 <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 <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/20150529/fecda6d4/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 gideonrop at gmail.com  Fri May 29 10:06:50 2015
From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 17:06:50 +0300
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
Message-ID: <CAP2ohHFdO_tsNNgarWX0NwL9KGYT3o-Esj4ZqHqmAbs9qeaujg@mail.gmail.com>

FYI. ICANN/FIFA Parallel Analysis,


"No Legal Basis for IANA Transition": A Post-Mortem Analysis of Senate
Committee Hearing:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150309_no_legal_basis_for_iana_transition_post_mortem_senate_hearing/


Gideon Rop
DotConnectAfrica

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I would have thought the interesting issue to address is how corruption
> flourishes in systems where accountability is only through and to insiders
> and where those insiders control very significant resources which they can
> use corruptly or no to manipulate the systems to ensure their impunity and
> continuity—i.e. closed loops with no external structures of accountability
> (as for example are achievable in many instances through effective
> democratic processes). If the shoes fit, perhaps they should be worn.
>
>
>
> The peroration’s concerning the ITU, the UN and uncle Tom Cobley are of
> course complete red herrings.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> *Sent:* May 29, 2015 10:45 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Christophe Nothias
> *Cc:* Michael Gurstein; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Jeremy Malcolm
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29 May 2015, at 3:55 pm, Jean-Christophe Nothias <
> jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - *David* (Cake)
>
> > Corruption has little to do with a system based on national
> representation. Study, source? I mean more than within the private sector,
> or any other space.
>
>
>
>             I was simply pointing out that FIFA is based on a system of
> direct voting based on national representatives. In this it somewhat
> loosely resembles, say, some ITU processes, more so than multi-stakeholder
> processes. I’m simply saying that neither recorded direct voting or a
> system based only on gatekeepered national representatives have prevented
> significant corruption in this case.
>
>             Some prominent JNC members have been quite explicit in saying
> that they prefer the UN or ITU model, in which ultimate decision making,
> and in particular selection of senior officials, goes to a direct ballot in
> which each nation has a single vote. Notably FIFA uses a similar model. And
> is allegedly, despite a massive corruption scandal, about to re-select the
> same leadership. In particular, an administration very unpopular with large
> nations in Western Europe (though popular with some other large nations,
> like Russia) is likely to be re-elected by votes from a large number of
> small nations. I’m not implying that the voting model always leads to
> flawed results (of course there are many other factors), but FIFA certainly
> represents an obvious counter-example to claims it prevents corruption, and
> has some parallels to criticisms often made of UN processes.
>
>
>
>             In short, if there is, as Michael contends, some lesson to be
> learnt from FIFA in regards to the IANA transition and ICANN it is this -
> be wary of a 1 vote per nation, UN style, model, as if anything it
> increases accountability and transparency issues. Those of us within ICANN
> have already seen this time and again in the ICANN GAC.
>
>
>
> > Thanks for acknowledging that "accountability and TRANSPARENCY are
> important factors". Maybe Jeremy should talk to you about this, as he has
> difficulties to talk to JNC about such critical issue.
>
>
>
>             Within ICANN, transparency per se is an issue, but the
> biggest transparency issue is accountability not transparency -
> transparency standards are generally quite high, but the accountability
> mechanisms are lacking to enforce them when they are really needed. In most
> ICANN policy processes, every meeting is open to anyone to listen, is
> recorded, recordings and transcripts are made available, every full
> participant has lodged an SOI, and so one. But yet when you might to find
> out which senior staff member made a particular dubious decision, suddenly
> the staff will have difficulty finding those documents or similar.
>
>             I don’t think this invalidates Jeremy’s critique of
> Parminders plan. NGOs are participants, not management. I agree the
> suggested mechanism through CSCG is inappropriate. I think there are other,
> more appropriate, mechanisms for NGO transparency. And like many others, I
> suspect that the results of the process will be an excuse for the JNC to
> continue to focus on matters internal to CS, lambasting those of us who
> dare to be funded by those Parminder dislikes (the US government and
> corporations), if anything actively interfering with the ability of CS to
> actively engage in the IG space. Not that I think transparency is bad - my
> own org publishes its accounts, as do many others - but it seems a poorly
> thought out proposal that puts the focus on the wrong place (on the
> ‘purity’ of CS participants, rather than accountability and transparency
> within IG decision making processes themselves).
>
>
>
> > JNC focusing on games at "democracy"? JNC has called for more
> transparency among participants to the current IG space: would that be
> playing game or would it be "focusing on the practical push for
> accountability..." Not sure who is getting confused here.
>
>
>
>             I was assuming we all had the level of perspective to
> consider discussions had within, say, the last couple of months. Or even,
> when discussing the IANA transition process, to understand that I was
> referring to actions made over the entire IANA transition process, not
> comments made on the IGC list on a different topic in the last few days.
> Apparently not. So let me clarify - when I was talking about
> accountability, I was referring specifically to accountability of
> ICANN/IANA, that being the topic Michael brought up, not the accountability
> of civil society organisations, that being an entirely different subject
> brought up by Parminder.
>
>             FWIW, I find it sadly quite typical of the dynamics of this
> list that we have had so very little discussion of the accountability
> aspects of IANA and ICANN here (major, significant efforts
>
>
>
>
>
> > JNC has been fighting over the introduction of a democratic pulse within
> IG.
>
>
>
>             Wel, they’ve certainly been fighting over the inclusion of
> the word ‘democracy’ in some statements. Whether or not that amounts to the
> same thing as ‘introduction of a democratic pulse’ is probably something on
> which there is significant disagreement.
>
>
>
> I see JNC has deserving recognition for that. Is fighting for democratic
> principles within a social community of public interest (IG) a "game", or
> isn't more simply part of the political debate (democracy) and the need for
> a different Internet governance (out of US domination by its public and
> private leadership)
>
>
>
>             Or perhaps JNC is fighting to have democratic principles
> interpreted in the means of its choosing. I certainly feel that I am
> fighting for democratic principles (or at least, transparency,
> accountability, inclusion, openness, and human rights), but most JNC
> members seem to feel that I am misguided and should perhaps be fighting for
> things such as a stronger representation of government (in the hopes that
> that naturally equates to democracy), or processes that are less inclusive
> of actors they dislike (such as those representing commercial interests).
>
>
>
> Everyone can take the lessons he wants to take.
>
>
>
>             Indeed.
>
>
>
>             David
>
>
>
> JC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 29 mai 2015 à 09:26, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> one lesson is that the service a group delivers has to be linked to strong
> accountability mechanism. Insofar, ICANNs Accountability discussion, which
> has started last year as an open, transparent and bottom up process with
> the involvement of all stakeholders is a key for ICANN´s future and the
> good service people expect from ICANN. BTW, FIFA operates under Swiss
> jurisdiction. ;-(((.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> :------Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von David Cake
> Gesendet: Fr 29.05.2015 09:06
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
> Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
>
> Obviously those who are more familiar with ICANN and FIFA would probably
> point out that the parallels are really not very strong. They are both
> international organisations that are non-government, but otherwise they are
> very different. FIFA is an association of national associations, ICANN is
> not.
>
> But it is a timely reminder for the need for strong accountability
> mechanisms. Which is probably why many of the ICANN engaged people on this
> list have been relatively quiet over the last year, as many of them have
> been involved either with the IANA transition (which has been very much
> concerned with structural accountability issues - how ICANN can be made
> responsible to those who, directly or indirectly, use IANA) or the
> accompanying accountability process (which is focussed on broader
> accountability issues with ICANN).
> (I myself have not been strongly involved with those processes, but I know
> Avri, Robin, Milton, and others have been spending many hours every week,
> which is probably why I sometimes have time to respond to cheap shots like
> this one).
>
> But if you'd like a few lessons that might be drawn:
> direct voting on a national representative basis is absolutely no defence
> against corruption.
> From which we might presume that accountability and transparency are more
> important factors in preventing corruption. Perhaps JNC might consider
> shifting its focus from games about the word 'democracy' and focus on the
> practical push for the accountability and transparency mechanisms that are
> a vital part of any democratic process.
>
> Regards
>
>             David
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29 May 2015, at 2:13 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> As I watch along with I'm sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am
> of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN,
> particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global
> non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.
>
>
>
> So, I'm wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning
> ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being
> exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything
> will be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?
>
>
>
> M
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20150529/f92321cc/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 May 29 10:30:02 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 22:30:02 +0800
Subject: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
In-Reply-To: <CAM2OVBpn+esi1gmSfYuzB3mQ-i6dqzcvx-_XO_ge913Gv7UvgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004d01d099d6$8d7b8d40$a872a7c0$@gmail.com> <D10BC1AC-89D3-44F4-AF7B-82B71423DCF3@difference.com.au> <CAM2OVBpn+esi1gmSfYuzB3mQ-i6dqzcvx-_XO_ge913Gv7UvgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E5CE2593-9B72-4170-8C54-735B10F14BF4@difference.com.au>


> On 29 May 2015, at 3:25 pm, Dr Yassin Mshana <ymshana2003 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> A 'cheap' explanation to David in this is that, both are responsible for the management of activities and funds sourced from the international community as the stakeholders..
> 

	Which is  very loose connection. A great deal of INGOs fit that basic description. The IOC, for example, is much closer in function to FIFA. ICANN is fundamentally in the business of regulation and ‘taxes' those it regulates. Thats very different to being a body whose primary function is organising international events (yes, I’m aware that FIFA does other things - but the World Cup is not only the main thing people care about, but the reason for most of its corruption allegations).

	David

> Kind regards.
> Yassin
> 
> On 29 May 2015 09:06, "David Cake" <dave at difference.com.au <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
> Obviously those who are more familiar with ICANN and FIFA would probably point out that the parallels are really not very strong. They are both international organisations that are non-government, but otherwise they are very different. FIFA is an association of national associations, ICANN is not.
> 
> But it is a timely reminder for the need for strong accountability mechanisms. Which is probably why many of the ICANN engaged people on this list have been relatively quiet over the last year, as many of them have been involved either with the IANA transition (which has been very much concerned with structural accountability issues - how ICANN can be made responsible to those who, directly or indirectly, use IANA) or the accompanying accountability process (which is focussed on broader accountability issues with ICANN).
> (I myself have not been strongly involved with those processes, but I know Avri, Robin, Milton, and others have been spending many hours every week, which is probably why I sometimes have time to respond to cheap shots like this one).
> 
> But if you’d like a few lessons that might be drawn:
> direct voting on a national representative basis is absolutely no defence against corruption.
> From which we might presume that accountability and transparency are more important factors in preventing corruption. Perhaps JNC might consider shifting its focus from games about the word ‘democracy’ and focus on the practical push for the accountability and transparency mechanisms that are a vital part of any democratic process.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 	David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 29 May 2015, at 2:13 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> As I watch along with I’m sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN, particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.
>> 
>> So, I’m wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything will be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?
>> 
>> 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 <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 <mailto: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/20150529/17ddaca2/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/20150529/17ddaca2/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  Sun May 31 03:00:29 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 09:00:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] Civil society transparency
In-Reply-To: <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org>
References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net>
	<CF50E28585184AFAA4BBC8D7F48AB245@Toshiba>
	<5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net>
	<685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org>
Message-ID: <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill>

On Thu, 28 May 2015 18:41:20 -0700
Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> Replying just to the IGC list

As a matter of fact, Jeremy's posting was broadcast to many civil
society mailing lists.

> in respect of the suggestion that the
> IGC could host this McCarthy Committee on civil society funding and
> transparency, I doubt that there is any consensus that it should do
> this, and the IGC cannot act in its absence.

While I don't think that the words "McCarthy Committee" are a
particularly good characterization of what was suggested, I agree that
IGC would not be a particularly good choice of locus for work on this,
and not only because of the difficulties in IGC with reaching consensus
on much of anything. (These difficulties have existed for a long time,
since well before either BestBits of JNC were founded.)

> I for one cannot imagine a scenario in which this would not do much
> more harm than good. There had already been much negative fallout
> from JNC members interrogating others on this list and the Best Bits
> lists by about their funding and demanding they take particular
> accountability and transparency measures. We could not withstand
> another such inquisition without a foundation of mutual trust and
> respect, which frankly will take much time to rebuild, beginning with
> an adjustment in attitude from the inquisitioners. 

Given that the initial set of pointed questions were sparked by the
initial Bestbits meeting having been part of a formal "capacity
building" programme funded in part by the US and UK government, and
given that about half of that initial Bestbits meeting was spent on
building a "civil society" position which turned so well aligned with
the interests of the US that the US government then in turn referenced
it officially --while the existence of that "capacity building"
programme had not in any way at the time been disclosed to the
participants of that Bestbits meeting-- I find it quite remarkable when
then it is proposed that rebuilding "a foundation of mutual trust and
respect" should be achieved not by taking accountability and
transparency measures, but instead by means of an "adjustment in
attitude from the inquisitioners".

Effectively this is essentially just another demand for people to shut
up in regard to a particular set of topics. Recently there was a posting
on the IGC list, by an IGC coordinator, which essentially suggested
that demands for democracy in Internet governance should not be brought
up because they can spark conflict. Now Jeremy, one of the founders and
key leaders of Bestbits, essentially says the same about a suggestion
to work towards a standard for *voluntary* disclosures in the area of
accountability and transparency.

So if we were to accept both of this, we should not talk about the need
for democracy, and also not talk about the need for accountability and
transparency within civil society.

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