From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Oct 31 18:44:58 2015
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:44:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CSCG nominations for civil society
 speakers at IGF
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdf+UmJSLN_kzBOBeLnw7UemMeOdFvpyAGOaQN9gUAL9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>
 <CAJTVAjzvb+VQWZOd-orXpzxczv8B==fNhUtFCCEq9HKdSya9Cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c43882cc-fb96-4a8d-8db4-41e7af1bcd77@varonferraz.com>
 <CAK-FJAdf+UmJSLN_kzBOBeLnw7UemMeOdFvpyAGOaQN9gUAL9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5635446A.10701@wzb.eu>

Hi Carolina,

why would the closing ceremony be the better choice? Isn't better for 
Joana to speak at the opening ceremony when national politicians and the 
press are around?

Jeanette


Am 31.10.15 um 18:31 schrieb Carolina Rossini:
> Good that you sent an updated bio Jo, I was about to do that when I saw
> Ian's email.
>
> I am very happy about the nominations, but I would invert the order of
> possible. Having a Brazilian at the end, as we had Grace and Burcu as CS
> for closing ceremony, is VERY important politically.
>
> Not just for CS, but actually more as a opportunity to have the closing
> speech also refer to national issues and ask specific commitments from
> the Brazilian policy makers there. As Joana is incredible aware, since
> she is deeply involved in the discussions, folks are trying to
> puncture Marco Civil and cut back on other digital rights in Brazil...
> We - the digital rights community - lost a lot of attention due to all
> the political corruption that has take over all the media attention.
>
> We need to have Joana - as a Brasilian - putting the "country" against
> the wall in front of everybody. And I feel the closing ceremony is
> better for that purpose.
>
> I am saying all this without having spoken with Joana. So, I am not sure
> if she is available.
>
> But I wanted to make sure to leave my opinion on this issue.
>
> C
>
> On Friday, October 30, 2015, <joana at varonferraz.com
> <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks, Ian and everyone!
>
>     I cannot express how honored I'm for this nomination. I hope I can
>     respond to the task with the bright it entails.
>
>     As soon as nomination is confirmed I will share a pad for people to
>     bring inputs. Will already be dreaming with some insights.
>
>     Just a correction in my institutional presentation as I'm not CTS
>     for more then 1 and half year now :):
>
>     I'm founder director and creative chaos catalyst of Coding Rights, a
>     women lead think-and-do tank with the mission to bring hackers,
>     geeks, artists, researchers and activists together to protect,
>     promote and mainstream digital rights and empower women on ICTs.
>     More on @codingrights or codingrights.org <http://codingrights.org>
>     (still temporary work in progress)
>
>     Thank you once again and have safe travels to João Pessoa. We will
>     be waiting for you all to cheer with caipirinhas or fresh coconut
>     water.
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Joana
>
>     On 30 Oct 2015 17:36, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org
>     <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lea at gp-digital.org');>> wrote:
>
>         Congratulations to both, proud to be represented by these women.
>
>         Many thanks to the CSCG for their work - excellent choices.
>
>         Best wishes,
>         Lea
>
>         On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Ian Peter
>         <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ian.peter at ianpeter.com');>> wrote:
>
>             Below are the two nominations from Civil Society
>             Coordination Group for speakers for this years IGF opening
>             and closing ceremonies. They were chosen from a field of 20
>             names submitted from various civil society coalitions, and
>             have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that
>             any of the 20 names submitted could have represented us
>             admirably, and that it was a tough decision for the CSCG
>             members to come up with 2 names.
>             Joana Varon (Brazil) – opening ceremony – joana at varonferraz.com
>             Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) – closing ceremony – nadine at apcwomen.org
>             For those who don’t know them,
>             Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project coordinator
>             at the Centre for Technology and Society from Fundação
>             Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro
>             Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese feminist activist and
>             grasssroots worker who leads Association for Progressive
>             Communication (APC)'s sexual
>             rights work.
>             We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to
>             represent civil society. They have both been informed of
>             their nominations.
>             Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination Group)
>
>             ____________________________________________________________
>             You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>             bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>             <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');>.
>             To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>             http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sat Oct 31 20:14:21 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:14:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC meeting in Joao Pessoa
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5kwLRiMKayfexb=B_wf1vy6yigxvfVR1SRt-O6YoKLaQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear IGC members,

Deirdre heard late Thursday afternoon that she will have funding to attend
IGF 2015 in Joao Pessoa. Through the good offices of Eleonora we have a
meeting room – Bilateral Room 3 – on Wednesday 11th November (Day 2) from
12.00 to 1300. Could you please indicate whether you will be willing and
able to attend a face to face meeting of the IGC at that date and time?

Whether you will be in Brazil or not we would be grateful for input for an
agenda. Please remember that we have only one hour for the meeting.

Thank you

Deirdre and Analia

-- 
“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/20151031/89c89693/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Oct  1 00:29:49 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:29:49 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [Inclusion] Plenary Speakers Announced -
 Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide
In-Reply-To: <CAMawbhkMcm1F_PrKysKNjWi89so+-JVzPzFJoccPiimg3FZHKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMawbhkMcm1F_PrKysKNjWi89so+-JVzPzFJoccPiimg3FZHKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <012c01d0fc01$cfa10eb0$6ee32c10$@gmail.com>

Maybe it is WSIS but the Digital Divide seems to be back on multiple agenda's... I'll be speaking at this one.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Digital Inclusion Network [mailto:inclusion at forums.e-democracy.org] On Behalf Of Angela Siefer
Sent: September 30, 2015 6:08 AM
To: inclusion at forums.e-democracy.org
Subject: [Inclusion] Plenary Speakers Announced - Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide

*Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide**: *2015 International Conference

Creating Connections, Building Bridges: Advancing the Digital Divide Research, Policy, and Practice Agenda
21-22 October 2015
Arizona State University SkySong
Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona USA


Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide <http://www.ppdd.org/conferences/ppdd2015/>, the only academic conference taking place in the United States focused upon the digital divide, is happy to announce our plenary speakers <http://www.ppdd.org/conferences/ppdd2015/program/> include:

   - Douglas Kinkoph, Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications
   Information and Applications, NTIA, U.S. Department of Commerce
   - Jay Schwarz, Acting Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Access
   Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau
   - U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Laura Breeden, former Program
   Director for Public Computing and Broadband Adoption, NTIA, U.S. Department
   of Commerce
   - Michael Gurstein, Executive Director, Centre for Community Informatics
   Research, Development, and Training and Editor-in-Chief, Journal of
   Community Informatics

The interdisciplinary Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide (PPDD)
2015 International Conference brings together researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to strategize actions and catalyze solutions to this pressing societal concern.

If you would like to present and discuss your work during PPDD 2015 and have it included in the online PPDD 2015 Conference Proceedings and/or if you would like to provide a Position Paper for inclusion in the PPDD 2015 E-Book, please see the Call for Participation (
http://www.ppdd.org/conferences/ppdd2015/cfp/) for instructions on how to submit your work for consideration. The deadline for abstracts (or, for practitioners - a summary of what you want to talk about) is October 4.

If you would like to just attend PPDD 2015 to explore the issues and grow your knowledge and network of connections, please know that you are very welcome and valued in the PPDD Conference Community. The deadline for registration <http://ppdd2015.brownpapertickets.com/> is October 7 and the deadline for hotel room reservations <http://hiltongardeninn.hilton.com/en/gi/groups/personalized/S/SCTGIGI-PPDD-20151017/index.jhtml?WT.mc_id=POG>
is October 2.


Angela Siefer
Director
National Digital Inclusion Alliance <http://digitalinclusionalliance.org/>
614-537-3057


Angela Siefer
Columbus
About/contact Angela Siefer: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/angelasiefer



------------------------
 Reply: Reply-All or visit http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5Fs7v0nGK9OXfRXs0NPUYA
 New Topic: inclusion at forums.e-democracy.org
     Digest: Subject: digest on
     Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
 Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/inclusion


* Post to your forum today! Reach the community immediately with no Facebook filtering stopping you from connecting with others.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Help? http://e-democracy.org/support  Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net




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

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu Oct  1 02:10:02 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:10:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] [Inclusion] Plenary Speakers Announced -
 Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide
In-Reply-To: <012c01d0fc01$cfa10eb0$6ee32c10$@gmail.com>
References: <CAMawbhkMcm1F_PrKysKNjWi89so+-JVzPzFJoccPiimg3FZHKQ@mail.gmail.com> <012c01d0fc01$cfa10eb0$6ee32c10$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A060215F-68EB-432B-A29E-E2C17AF3C4E1@consensus.pro>

It is much more the SDG summit than WSIS I think - but whatever it is, it is very welcome!

> On 1 Oct 2015, at 06:29, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Maybe it is WSIS but the Digital Divide seems to be back on multiple agenda's... I'll be speaking at this one.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digital Inclusion Network [mailto:inclusion at forums.e-democracy.org] On Behalf Of Angela Siefer
> Sent: September 30, 2015 6:08 AM
> To: inclusion at forums.e-democracy.org
> Subject: [Inclusion] Plenary Speakers Announced - Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide
> 
> *Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide**: *2015 International Conference
> 
> Creating Connections, Building Bridges: Advancing the Digital Divide Research, Policy, and Practice Agenda
> 21-22 October 2015
> Arizona State University SkySong
> Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona USA
> 
> 
> Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide <http://www.ppdd.org/conferences/ppdd2015/>, the only academic conference taking place in the United States focused upon the digital divide, is happy to announce our plenary speakers <http://www.ppdd.org/conferences/ppdd2015/program/> include:
> 
>   - Douglas Kinkoph, Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications
>   Information and Applications, NTIA, U.S. Department of Commerce
>   - Jay Schwarz, Acting Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Access
>   Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau
>   - U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Laura Breeden, former Program
>   Director for Public Computing and Broadband Adoption, NTIA, U.S. Department
>   of Commerce
>   - Michael Gurstein, Executive Director, Centre for Community Informatics
>   Research, Development, and Training and Editor-in-Chief, Journal of
>   Community Informatics
> 
> The interdisciplinary Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide (PPDD)
> 2015 International Conference brings together researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to strategize actions and catalyze solutions to this pressing societal concern.
> 
> If you would like to present and discuss your work during PPDD 2015 and have it included in the online PPDD 2015 Conference Proceedings and/or if you would like to provide a Position Paper for inclusion in the PPDD 2015 E-Book, please see the Call for Participation (
> http://www.ppdd.org/conferences/ppdd2015/cfp/) for instructions on how to submit your work for consideration. The deadline for abstracts (or, for practitioners - a summary of what you want to talk about) is October 4.
> 
> If you would like to just attend PPDD 2015 to explore the issues and grow your knowledge and network of connections, please know that you are very welcome and valued in the PPDD Conference Community. The deadline for registration <http://ppdd2015.brownpapertickets.com/> is October 7 and the deadline for hotel room reservations <http://hiltongardeninn.hilton.com/en/gi/groups/personalized/S/SCTGIGI-PPDD-20151017/index.jhtml?WT.mc_id=POG>
> is October 2.
> 
> 
> Angela Siefer
> Director
> National Digital Inclusion Alliance <http://digitalinclusionalliance.org/>
> 614-537-3057
> 
> 
> Angela Siefer
> Columbus
> About/contact Angela Siefer: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/angelasiefer
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5Fs7v0nGK9OXfRXs0NPUYA
> New Topic: inclusion at forums.e-democracy.org
>     Digest: Subject: digest on
>     Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/inclusion
> 
> 
> * Post to your forum today! Reach the community immediately with no Facebook filtering stopping you from connecting with others.
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Help? http://e-democracy.org/support  Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151001/0a442caf/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Oct  2 04:25:17 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 13:55:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] <nettime> VW
In-Reply-To: <56096CBF.7080407@eff.org>
References: <56083fbf.e517b40a.c26ec.043dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <00c801d0f972$2ae9d5a0$80bd80e0$@gmail.com> <56096CBF.7080407@eff.org>
Message-ID: <560E3F6D.9070907@itforchange.net>



On Monday 28 September 2015 10:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 27/09/2015 3:16 pm, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> Significant portions of Civil Society have bought into this approach which is firmly premised on the notion that somehow the private sector should be directly involved in making governance decisions because well, they are so public spirited, or that they have the long term interests of everyone at heart ("they are people too aren't they"), or we can trust them much more than those perfidious folks in government, or they are "accountable" to their shareholders and wouldn't do anything completely untoward to risk shareholder value etc.etc. (you know the drill...
> No, not really that at all.  They have to be involved because they are
> already involved.  For now, the decisions of companies like Facebook and
> Google about their terms of service and so on are de facto transnational
> rules for the Internet, at least as much as the rules that governments
> make (collectively or individually).  So it impossible to disentangle
> these companies from the process of situating those rules within a more
> accountable global framework of principle.

Jeremy, basically you are accepting that, in your view, democracy is no
longer feasible or to be preferred, or both, in matters of Internet
governance. That is a remarkable claim/ acceptance, even though it is
what has always underpinned the equal footing multi-stakeholder model.
To that extent I commend your honesty and integrity which is much more
than what can be said about most other supporters of the equal footing
model who tend to simply disappear from any discussion when they are
asked to come down to actual implications (both theoretical and
practical) of such a model.

That compliment for honesty and forthrightness having been paid, may I
ask you a question. How is your assertion different from the claims of
the feudal class during early days of the evolution of democracy, say,
In England, for the biggest pie of the national level political decision
making power, on the basis that they owned large-scale landed property,
and thus held control over the key productive resources of that time -
thereby also setting the de facto rules in most aspects of contemporary
social life, ... This can be seen the history of the House of Lords, and
also the fact that for a very long time ownership of property was  a
condition of enfranchisement....

What you are advocating, albeit by presenting it as something
inevitable, I see is exactly the same... Corporates today 'own' the
biggest chunks of what are the contemporary key productive resources,
and of what on the Internet can comparably be called as  digital estate
and thus setting in your words 'de facto transnational rules for the
Internet'. You give this as the logic for why we should accept them to
be given a highly disproportionate role in the political governance of
the Internet and the associated phenomenon. I say disproportionate
because every shareholder, big or small, of these companies does already
have a political role equal to every other person (minus the difference
that power of various resources make, but lets disregard that for the
moment) .

What you are presenting is directly a case for digital fedualism, which
equal footing multistakeholderism of course really is. I am astonished
that such a philosophy can have such widespread support as equal footing
multistakeholderism indeed has in some very dominant circles of Internet
governance.

Aligning political power to economic power, at institutional levels and
not just in hidden, informal ways which have always existed, is what the
current global neoliberal design currently is. (An important traditional
role of political power has been to regulate and rein in the execesses
of economic power.) The World Economic Forum is often considered as its
key global nerve centre, although I'd say it will be more factual to say
that the primary nerve centre is in fact still solidly inside the US
economic and political establishments. This most important global
problem and danger is extensively recognised among global civil society
movements, and is actively resisted. It is the fact that these dangerous
global developments are, on the other hand, actually supported by a big
chunk of civil society in the Internet governance space which creates a
significant dissonance that this space has with the mainstream global
civil society.

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/20151002/085a6145/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Oct  2 09:31:09 2015
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:31:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] <nettime> VW
In-Reply-To: <560E3F6D.9070907@itforchange.net>
References: <56083fbf.e517b40a.c26ec.043dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <00c801d0f972$2ae9d5a0$80bd80e0$@gmail.com> <56096CBF.7080407@eff.org> <560E3F6D.9070907@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiULcdMBR6zpf6RLkohK3kn3ff891x85pW6ZwYVkzMBPQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:25 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Monday 28 September 2015 10:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 27/09/2015 3:16 pm, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> Significant portions of Civil Society have bought into this approach which is firmly premised on the notion that somehow the private sector should be directly involved in making governance decisions because well, they are so public spirited, or that they have the long term interests of everyone at heart ("they are people too aren't they"), or we can trust them much more than those perfidious folks in government, or they are "accountable" to their shareholders and wouldn't do anything completely untoward to risk shareholder value etc.etc. (you know the drill...
>
> No, not really that at all.  They have to be involved because they are
> already involved.  For now, the decisions of companies like Facebook and
> Google about their terms of service and so on are de facto transnational
> rules for the Internet, at least as much as the rules that governments
> make (collectively or individually).  So it impossible to disentangle
> these companies from the process of situating those rules within a more
> accountable global framework of principle.
>
>
> Jeremy, basically you are accepting that, in your view, democracy is no
> longer feasible or to be preferred, or both, in matters of Internet
> governance.
>



Now you are just trolling, Jeremy neither said nor meant what you are
saying.

He is merely pointing out the obvious reality.





> That is a remarkable claim/ acceptance, even though it is what has always
> underpinned the equal footing multi-stakeholder model.
>

Disagree.  What underpins the multi-equal stakeholder model is the
collaborative ethos of the early Internet.

The rest of your argument is based on the above flawed premises, and so
needs no comment.


Regards,

McTim



> To that extent I commend your honesty and integrity which is much more
> than what can be said about most other supporters of the equal footing
> model who tend to simply disappear from any discussion when they are asked
> to come down to actual implications (both theoretical and practical) of
> such a model.
>
> That compliment for honesty and forthrightness having been paid, may I ask
> you a question. How is your assertion different from the claims of the
> feudal class during early days of the evolution of democracy, say, In
> England, for the biggest pie of the national level political decision
> making power, on the basis that they owned large-scale landed property, and
> thus held control over the key productive resources of that time - thereby
> also setting the de facto rules in most aspects of contemporary social
> life, ... This can be seen the history of the House of Lords, and also the
> fact that for a very long time ownership of property was  a condition of
> enfranchisement....
>
> What you are advocating, albeit by presenting it as something inevitable,
> I see is exactly the same... Corporates today 'own' the biggest chunks of
> what are the contemporary key productive resources, and of what on the
> Internet can comparably be called as  digital estate and thus setting in
> your words 'de facto transnational rules for the Internet'. You give this
> as the logic for why we should accept them to be given a highly
> disproportionate role in the political governance of the Internet and the
> associated phenomenon. I say disproportionate because every shareholder,
> big or small, of these companies does already have a political role equal
> to every other person (minus the difference that power of various resources
> make, but lets disregard that for the moment) .
>
> What you are presenting is directly a case for digital fedualism, which
> equal footing multistakeholderism of course really is. I am astonished that
> such a philosophy can have such widespread support as equal footing
> multistakeholderism indeed has in some very dominant circles of Internet
> governance.
>
> Aligning political power to economic power, at institutional levels and
> not just in hidden, informal ways which have always existed, is what the
> current global neoliberal design currently is. (An important traditional
> role of political power has been to regulate and rein in the execesses of
> economic power.) The World Economic Forum is often considered as its key
> global nerve centre, although I'd say it will be more factual to say that
> the primary nerve centre is in fact still solidly inside the US economic
> and political establishments. This most important global problem and danger
> is extensively recognised among global civil society movements, and is
> actively resisted. It is the fact that these dangerous global developments
> are, on the other hand, actually supported by a big chunk of civil society
> in the Internet governance space which creates a significant dissonance
> that this space has with the mainstream global civil society.
>
> 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:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151002/b87f3f5f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Oct  2 09:49:33 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0530
Subject: [governance] <nettime> VW
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiULcdMBR6zpf6RLkohK3kn3ff891x85pW6ZwYVkzMBPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56083fbf.e517b40a.c26ec.043dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <00c801d0f972$2ae9d5a0$80bd80e0$@gmail.com> <56096CBF.7080407@eff.org> <560E3F6D.9070907@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxiULcdMBR6zpf6RLkohK3kn3ff891x85pW6ZwYVkzMBPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <560E8B6D.2070305@itforchange.net>

McTim

We have since long given up arguing with each other, and I am responding
only bec you accuse me of trolling.

On Friday 02 October 2015 07:01 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:25 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Monday 28 September 2015 10:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>     snip
>>     No, not really that at all.  They have to be involved because they are
>>     already involved.  For now, the decisions of companies like Facebook and
>>     Google about their terms of service and so on are de facto transnational
>>     rules for the Internet, at least as much as the rules that governments
>>     make (collectively or individually).  So it impossible to disentangle
>>     these companies from the process of situating those rules within a more
>>     accountable global framework of principle.
>
>     Jeremy, basically you are accepting that, in your view, democracy
>     is no longer feasible or to be preferred, or both, in matters of
>     Internet governance.
>
>
>
>
> Now you are just trolling, Jeremy neither said nor meant what you are
> saying.

Giving corporates a direct role in public policy making is *not*
democratic. In a democracy every person has an equal role to every other
person, and only natural persons have a political role. Now, if either
you or Jeremy wants to say that this is not the definition of democracy,
that is a separate debate, which too I am happy to pursue. Note that
Jeremy is justifying here ' direct involvement' of corporates in
governance on the basis that they hold the maximal existing power in the
digital realm.


>
> He is merely pointing out the obvious reality.

As was the reality in times of early evolution of democracy that a few
feudal lords held most of the land, which still was the most important
productive resource.... So does this reality then mean  that one should
support the feudal insistence on much greater political power than
ordinary beings?

parminder
>
>
>
>  
>
>     That is a remarkable claim/ acceptance, even though it is what has
>     always underpinned the equal footing multi-stakeholder model.
>
>
> Disagree.  What underpins the multi-equal stakeholder model is the
> collaborative ethos of the early Internet.
>
> The rest of your argument is based on the above flawed premises, and
> so needs no comment.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> McTim
>
>  
>
>     To that extent I commend your honesty and integrity which is much
>     more than what can be said about most other supporters of the
>     equal footing model who tend to simply disappear from any
>     discussion when they are asked to come down to actual implications
>     (both theoretical and practical) of such a model.
>
>     That compliment for honesty and forthrightness having been paid,
>     may I ask you a question. How is your assertion different from the
>     claims of the feudal class during early days of the evolution of
>     democracy, say, In England, for the biggest pie of the national
>     level political decision making power, on the basis that they
>     owned large-scale landed property, and thus held control over the
>     key productive resources of that time - thereby also setting the
>     de facto rules in most aspects of contemporary social life, ...
>     This can be seen the history of the House of Lords, and also the
>     fact that for a very long time ownership of property was  a
>     condition of enfranchisement....
>
>     What you are advocating, albeit by presenting it as something
>     inevitable, I see is exactly the same... Corporates today 'own'
>     the biggest chunks of what are the contemporary key productive
>     resources, and of what on the Internet can comparably be called
>     as  digital estate and thus setting in your words 'de facto
>     transnational rules for the Internet'. You give this as the logic
>     for why we should accept them to be given a highly
>     disproportionate role in the political governance of the Internet
>     and the associated phenomenon. I say disproportionate because
>     every shareholder, big or small, of these companies does already
>     have a political role equal to every other person (minus the
>     difference that power of various resources make, but lets
>     disregard that for the moment) .
>
>     What you are presenting is directly a case for digital fedualism,
>     which equal footing multistakeholderism of course really is. I am
>     astonished that such a philosophy can have such widespread support
>     as equal footing multistakeholderism indeed has in some very
>     dominant circles of Internet governance.
>
>     Aligning political power to economic power, at institutional
>     levels and not just in hidden, informal ways which have always
>     existed, is what the current global neoliberal design currently
>     is. (An important traditional role of political power has been to
>     regulate and rein in the execesses of economic power.) The World
>     Economic Forum is often considered as its key global nerve centre,
>     although I'd say it will be more factual to say that the primary
>     nerve centre is in fact still solidly inside the US economic and
>     political establishments. This most important global problem and
>     danger is extensively recognised among global civil society
>     movements, and is actively resisted. It is the fact that these
>     dangerous global developments are, on the other hand, actually
>     supported by a big chunk of civil society in the Internet
>     governance space which creates a significant dissonance that this
>     space has with the mainstream global civil society.
>
>     parminder
>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151002/9337bf43/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Oct  2 14:57:37 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:57:37 -0700
Subject: [governance] <nettime> VW
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiULcdMBR6zpf6RLkohK3kn3ff891x85pW6ZwYVkzMBPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56083fbf.e517b40a.c26ec.043dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <00c801d0f972$2ae9d5a0$80bd80e0$@gmail.com> <56096CBF.7080407@eff.org> <560E3F6D.9070907@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxiULcdMBR6zpf6RLkohK3kn3ff891x85pW6ZwYVkzMBPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006f01d0fd44$3495cb60$9dc16220$@gmail.com>

McTim,

 

The continuously repeated argument from (the) history (of the Internet) is seriously flawed.  Whatever the actual history of the Internet there have been numerous initiatives—automobiles, electricity, even the spinning jenny which started with individual or collective (private) initiative but which morphed into something of such overwhelming social significance that there was the need for intervention and ultimately regulation in the broad public interest.  In each instance the private operators who had pioneered were either more or less reluctant to respond positively to this (they saw their property interests being threatened) but the need for pursuing the public interest was so overwhelming that these were overridden.

 

So, to my mind the real question and perhaps the one we should be addressing beyond the various ideological positions being put forward, is how do we best pursue the public interest in this particular domain given the very specific particularities of the Internet, including of course the need for expert contribution to manage whatever interventions are finally decided upon.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: October 2, 2015 6:31 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] <nettime> VW

 

 

 

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:25 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> > wrote:

 

On Monday 28 September 2015 10:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

On 27/09/2015 3:16 pm, Michael Gurstein wrote:

Significant portions of Civil Society have bought into this approach which is firmly premised on the notion that somehow the private sector should be directly involved in making governance decisions because well, they are so public spirited, or that they have the long term interests of everyone at heart ("they are people too aren't they"), or we can trust them much more than those perfidious folks in government, or they are "accountable" to their shareholders and wouldn't do anything completely untoward to risk shareholder value etc.etc. (you know the drill...

No, not really that at all.  They have to be involved because they are
already involved.  For now, the decisions of companies like Facebook and
Google about their terms of service and so on are de facto transnational
rules for the Internet, at least as much as the rules that governments
make (collectively or individually).  So it impossible to disentangle
these companies from the process of situating those rules within a more
accountable global framework of principle.


Jeremy, basically you are accepting that, in your view, democracy is no longer feasible or to be preferred, or both, in matters of Internet governance. 

 

 

 

Now you are just trolling, Jeremy neither said nor meant what you are saying.

 

He is merely pointing out the obvious reality.

 

 

 

 

That is a remarkable claim/ acceptance, even though it is what has always underpinned the equal footing multi-stakeholder model. 

 

Disagree.  What underpins the multi-equal stakeholder model is the collaborative ethos of the early Internet.

 

The rest of your argument is based on the above flawed premises, and so needs no comment.

 

 

Regards,

 

McTim

 

 

To that extent I commend your honesty and integrity which is much more than what can be said about most other supporters of the equal footing model who tend to simply disappear from any discussion when they are asked to come down to actual implications (both theoretical and practical) of such a model.

That compliment for honesty and forthrightness having been paid, may I ask you a question. How is your assertion different from the claims of the feudal class during early days of the evolution of democracy, say, In England, for the biggest pie of the national level political decision making power, on the basis that they owned large-scale landed property, and thus held control over the key productive resources of that time - thereby also setting the de facto rules in most aspects of contemporary social life, ... This can be seen the history of the House of Lords, and also the fact that for a very long time ownership of property was  a condition of enfranchisement....

What you are advocating, albeit by presenting it as something inevitable, I see is exactly the same... Corporates today 'own' the biggest chunks of what are the contemporary key productive resources, and of what on the Internet can comparably be called as  digital estate and thus setting in your words 'de facto transnational rules for the Internet'. You give this as the logic for why we should accept them to be given a highly disproportionate role in the political governance of the Internet and the associated phenomenon. I say disproportionate because every shareholder, big or small, of these companies does already have a political role equal to every other person (minus the difference that power of various resources make, but lets disregard that for the moment) .

What you are presenting is directly a case for digital fedualism, which equal footing multistakeholderism of course really is. I am astonished that such a philosophy can have such widespread support as equal footing multistakeholderism indeed has in some very dominant circles of Internet governance. 

Aligning political power to economic power, at institutional levels and not just in hidden, informal ways which have always existed, is what the current global neoliberal design currently is. (An important traditional role of political power has been to regulate and rein in the execesses of economic power.) The World Economic Forum is often considered as its key global nerve centre, although I'd say it will be more factual to say that the primary nerve centre is in fact still solidly inside the US economic and political establishments. This most important global problem and danger is extensively recognised among global civil society movements, and is actively resisted. It is the fact that these dangerous global developments are, on the other hand, actually supported by a big chunk of civil society in the Internet governance space which creates a significant dissonance that this space has with the mainstream global civil society. 

parminder




 

____________________________________________________________
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





 

-- 

Cheers,

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151002/d9aa1da1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jac at apcwomen.org  Mon Oct  5 10:01:38 2015
From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:01:38 +0800
Subject: [governance] Call for input: Policy questions on Human Rights,
 Access and IG (IGF Main session)
Message-ID: <561282C2.2090300@apcwomen.org>

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

Dear colleagues,

The IGF will be hosting a main session on human rights this year, with
a focus on access.

The methodology is in a roundtable format, with discussions in 3
clusters. The clusters are aimed at highlighting the focus of this
year's IGF theme, the issues raised as critical concerns through IGF
workshop submissions, as well as a section that allows for new and
emerging issues to be included.

We invite the IGF community to help shape this session by:

a) Joining the HR main session mailing list where the planning will be
taking place:
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/ms2015_humanrights_intgovfo
rum.org

b) Submitting your contributions to policy questions, and
recommendations for moderators/discussants directly as suggestions to
the open google document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JU5BhxAOpyLfVFo6vzFGZ0Ks7XU350FgeKPa
5z_TUoo/edit#heading=h.llc1d6zeyrkq

Much thanks, and looking forward to your thoughts and contributions.

Best,
Jac sm Kee & Angelic del Castilho
Co-coordinators of the HR main session

- ---------------------------------
Jac sm Kee
Manager, Women's Rights Programme
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org
Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWEoLCAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmX6cH+gNHIlRLtRCl/dvxDvWOitAj
59R8UKwwWg0lIn9W0CxVa+SIC4+aSFGOaC1acxI+MBlZ0XsC2JRgbj5hLOhM7gr8
/x4FYdmGCqB/QLF7MchwAHuYuQeiJ8BkXoybwLEG/0hXS5dMORbSttNY3rgr07Cw
gQyDxOo01nG6NvIWr0VcbJo3VfkqXG7MJAYcjbrXWQkmrMNmiB2ka1ws8GDDRdY6
BKUjZyseCMc6arYR+4PPfYDG8Wm9XmrqUa2ozK5j0iMfcCEqSfbom3uQyoy8Q8N7
ouNVP6PJJ4k76aH0GGK6jPs/njpTSvvcjbHJwRR08CA8NkKvzmGMMSHmWBeLM54=
=n4NV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Oct  5 22:46:08 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:16:08 +0530
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
Message-ID: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net>

But it's interesting to see an articulate voice advocate "the other side" and call out some of the commentary on this issue as  ill informed and politically aimed rhetoric 

Engaging in debate would be useful so the author of this piece can get a more informed : balanced and less politically driven perspective of neutrality

http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html

--srs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151006/a20c8d45/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jac at apcwomen.org  Tue Oct  6 10:15:31 2015
From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 22:15:31 +0800
Subject: [governance] [GenderDC] Call for input: Policy questions on
 Human Rights, Access and IG (IGF Main session)
In-Reply-To: <18da248caa0b5f48a9f65e3891626c27@riseup.net>
References: <561282C2.2090300@apcwomen.org>
 <DE0A99E1-1CE4-4726-9E9B-E52484A02D1A@soscoalition.org.za>
 <18da248caa0b5f48a9f65e3891626c27@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <5613D783.6050102@apcwomen.org>

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

Hi,

Problem is the link broke into the second line. So just copy and paste
the whole link into the URL, and that should work.

Let me know if it doesn't?

Thanks!
jac


- ---------------------------------
Jac sm Kee
Manager, Women's Rights Programme
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org
Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe

On 06/10/2015 18:39, nyxmclean at riseup.net wrote:
> Hi Lweendo and Jac
> 
> Having trouble on this side too.
> 
> Nyx
> 
> 
> On 2015-10-06 12:36, Lweendo Hamukoma wrote:
>>> On 5 Oct 2015, at 16:01, Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Jac,
>> 
>> I tried accessing both links and they don’t seem to be working.
>> Anyone else having trouble accessing the sites?
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Lweendo _______________________________________________ Genderigf
>> mailing list Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org 
>> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf
> 
> _______________________________________________ Genderigf mailing
> list Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org 
> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWE9eDAAoJEKpQzmPAS5Fm8ugH/ilVOUM8l6M5NGUnVm7BXIx7
j4HZ+0QS9plWxw6uLgp3e8hpqubmil9+f/PsmSvyKYDxDHTTnb+Tkk57C7y5i3yQ
lZcQGrpbIlNImKMJXOM1fMkEX8IEJEPYiPe4oxmIheD9kU7Tb3kV0/e2FmO6SyVt
PRVj+mCvb5/CJdgGJyuqjglhtWEGlyJD2xJL6FQWbHE5Si/8mjWccaM/Fg6VJIFi
HShOe1D3Wmi4S/tUBpkeXyoP1OllKmZ0k6l8tg+fTSn6orGlsc9swtyBC43TaPbT
Iqq4Z4+a/miwOwJ1fBJktZYiFHpImmcc2YRpvrV9lRHeqFtBs1y5EVX2joLnd28=
=xCio
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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

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

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Tue Oct  6 11:34:29 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 15:34:29 +0000
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

At the TPRC conference there was an interesting paper on Zero-rating. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2587542
Unfortunately it’s not downloadable yet. I attended this session however and while the methodology of this paper was not strong, it did raise some interesting questions about the attack on zero-rating. One of the most eye-opening findings was that the services or apps that were zero rated did not actually seem to benefit that much in terms of market share or demand. I know that minor incidences of zero-rating will not affect the fear of many that it could be abused by big players, but if it has truly strong and visible anti-competitive effects, then one should attack such practices on an adhoc basis using competition policy, not oppose all zero-rating in all situations by all market participants. It seems that zero-rating could be used by market entrants to gain a foothold in the market and increase competition in certain instances.

Regarding Facebook and Internet.org, let me see if I understand the argument: No access at all is preferable to limited access, and we shouldn’t allow anyone to make that choice for themselves. Is that it? ;-)

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 10:46 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree

But it's interesting to see an articulate voice advocate "the other side" and call out some of the commentary on this issue as  ill informed and politically aimed rhetoric

Engaging in debate would be useful so the author of this piece can get a more informed : balanced and less politically driven perspective of neutrality

http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html

--srs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151006/d8bc8123/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue Oct  6 11:42:26 2015
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:42:26 -0300
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net>
 <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5613EBE2.9060800@cafonso.ca>



On 10/6/15 12:34, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> At the TPRC conference there was an interesting paper on Zero-rating.
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2587542


> Regarding Facebook and Internet.org, let me see if I understand the
> argument: No access at all is preferable to limited access, and we
> shouldn’t allow anyone to make that choice for themselves. Is that it? ;-)

Milton, I did not read that paper. There are several good papers on the
subject which I have read, and wonder: are you really asking that
question seriously? Probably not, given the emoji at the end.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Oct  6 11:42:42 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 21:12:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net> <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <C413BE4B-172E-4003-AEE6-448A4E168BD9@hserus.net>

Well, if people try to extend the declaration of independence and hold that all packets are created equal, without regard to engineering realities .. I guess they’ll do this too :)

—srs

> On 06-Oct-2015, at 9:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> It seems that zero-rating could be used by market entrants to gain a foothold in the market and increase competition in certain instances.
>  
> Regarding Facebook and Internet.org <http://internet.org/>, let me see if I understand the argument: No access at all is preferable to limited access, and we shouldn’t allow anyone to make that choice for themselves. Is that it? ;-)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151006/56662aa2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct  6 13:08:18 2015
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:08:18 +0000
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree - but
 wait there's more: Facebook/Eutelsat/Internet.org in Subsaharan Africa
In-Reply-To: <C413BE4B-172E-4003-AEE6-448A4E168BD9@hserus.net>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net>
 <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>,<C413BE4B-172E-4003-AEE6-448A4E168BD9@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <1444151298042.87661@syr.edu>

http://news.eutelsat.com/pressreleases/eutelsat-and-facebook-to-partner-on-satellite-initiative-to-get-more-africans-online-1228638


My comments:


Satellite-delivered packets are most definitely unequal and relatively pricey due to engineering realities and launch costs. Bandwidth/cost optimization requires actively engineering for periodically refreshed (terrestrial) content caches/delivery networks.


Still satellites are cheaper for Internet access than other packet delivery options in areas severely lacking terrestrial infrastructure, whether wired or (terrestrial) wireless.


But I guess since Facebook is paying for it and is among the naturally favored offerings, some of us would suggest this a is a very bad thing for sub-Saharan Africa?

And of course it is just fine for Eutelsat to sell business-class Internet access off the same satellite, with no intent of making it available to evveryone.

Lee




________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 11:42 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree

Well, if people try to extend the declaration of independence and hold that all packets are created equal, without regard to engineering realities .. I guess they'll do this too :)

-srs

On 06-Oct-2015, at 9:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu<mailto:milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>> wrote:

It seems that zero-rating could be used by market entrants to gain a foothold in the market and increase competition in certain instances.

Regarding Facebook and Internet.org<http://internet.org/>, let me see if I understand the argument: No access at all is preferable to limited access, and we shouldn't allow anyone to make that choice for themselves. Is that it? ;-)

pula
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151006/ab20e3b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu  Tue Oct  6 13:23:57 2015
From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:23:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net> <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <B7DC2AFB-B287-4A9E-828B-F7C2AAFFAECE@christopherwilkinson.eu>

> Is that it?

The problem is not limited access, it is FB.

CW


On 06 Oct 2015, at 17:34, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

> At the TPRC conference there was an interesting paper on Zero-rating. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2587542
> Unfortunately it’s not downloadable yet. I attended this session however and while the methodology of this paper was not strong, it did raise some interesting questions about the attack on zero-rating. One of the most eye-opening findings was that the services or apps that were zero rated did not actually seem to benefit that much in terms of market share or demand. I know that minor incidences of zero-rating will not affect the fear of many that it could be abused by big players, but if it has truly strong and visible anti-competitive effects, then one should attack such practices on an adhoc basis using competition policy, not oppose all zero-rating in all situations by all market participants. It seems that zero-rating could be used by market entrants to gain a foothold in the market and increase competition in certain instances.
>  
> Regarding Facebook and Internet.org, let me see if I understand the argument: No access at all is preferable to limited access, and we shouldn’t allow anyone to make that choice for themselves. Is that it? ;-)
>  
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 10:46 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
>  
> But it's interesting to see an articulate voice advocate "the other side" and call out some of the commentary on this issue as  ill informed and politically aimed rhetoric 
>  
> Engaging in debate would be useful so the author of this piece can get a more informed : balanced and less politically driven perspective of neutrality
>  
> http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html
> 
> --srs
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151006/9302012f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Oct  6 13:35:50 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:05:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <B7DC2AFB-B287-4A9E-828B-F7C2AAFFAECE@christopherwilkinson.eu>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net> <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <B7DC2AFB-B287-4A9E-828B-F7C2AAFFAECE@christopherwilkinson.eu>
Message-ID: <A288DA64-0C3A-48CC-B623-298BD0DCA29A@hserus.net>

The problem is rather more nuanced and reducing it to black and white extremes makes it much easier to take potshots at such an opinion

--srs

> On 06-Oct-2015, at 10:53 PM, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
> 
> > Is that it?
> 
> The problem is not limited access, it is FB.
> 
> CW
> 
> 
>> On 06 Oct 2015, at 17:34, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> At the TPRC conference there was an interesting paper on Zero-rating. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2587542
>> Unfortunately it’s not downloadable yet. I attended this session however and while the methodology of this paper was not strong, it did raise some interesting questions about the attack on zero-rating. One of the most eye-opening findings was that the services or apps that were zero rated did not actually seem to benefit that much in terms of market share or demand. I know that minor incidences of zero-rating will not affect the fear of many that it could be abused by big players, but if it has truly strong and visible anti-competitive effects, then one should attack such practices on an adhoc basis using competition policy, not oppose all zero-rating in all situations by all market participants. It seems that zero-rating could be used by market entrants to gain a foothold in the market and increase competition in certain instances.
>>  
>> Regarding Facebook and Internet.org, let me see if I understand the argument: No access at all is preferable to limited access, and we shouldn’t allow anyone to make that choice for themselves. Is that it? ;-)
>>  
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 10:46 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
>>  
>> But it's interesting to see an articulate voice advocate "the other side" and call out some of the commentary on this issue as  ill informed and politically aimed rhetoric 
>>  
>> Engaging in debate would be useful so the author of this piece can get a more informed : balanced and less politically driven perspective of neutrality
>>  
>> http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html
>> 
>> --srs
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151006/48f6bbb6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct  6 23:13:07 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:13:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: NYT: Data Transfer Pact Between U.S. and Europe
 Is Ruled Invalid
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBzmVLNe-vLW6kc3vbL+8zryO9kZyJ+cgU-NjpG2MbVoYA@mail.gmail.com>

Data Transfer Pact Between U.S. and Europe Is Ruled Invalid:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/technology/european-union-us-data-collection.html

Court of Justice Declares Irish Data Protection Commissioner's US Safe
Harbour Decision Invalid:
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.pdf


This is great, because it illustrates how a fundamental rights
framework of a sorta-federalized type (in the EU) gives you a real
basis for actual recourse -- courts are rooted properly, so, as in
this case, they are a check assuring the priority of the people(s)'
fundamental rights in relation to the government(s) (the Irish Data
Protection Commissioner in this case).  (The EU's Charter of
Fundamental Rights, crafted to acknowledge the fundamental rights the
people[s] of the EU have claimed for themselves.)

Note that this is fundamentally different from an international treaty
on rights, which is not so rooted.  You don't have fundamental rights
in the international arena.  Really.  That requires an act of the
people setting limits on their governments, not among governments.  A
treaty among governments is essentially "statutory" at best, meaning
the same "legislators" who wrote a human rights treaty can go ahead an
qualify those rights through other treaties.

Opinion:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=168421&doclang=EN


Seth

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/technology/european-union-us-data-collection.html
> Europe’s highest court on Tuesday struck down an international agreement
> that allowed companies to move people’s digital data between the European
> Union and the United States, leaving the international operations of
> companies like Google and Facebook in a sort of legal limbo.
>
> The ruling, by the European Court of Justice, said the so-called safe harbor
> agreement was flawed because it allowed American government authorities to
> gain routine access to Europeans’ online information. The court said leaks
> from Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security
> Agency, made it clear that American intelligence agencies had almost
> unfettered access to the data, infringing on Europeans’ rights to privacy.
>
> The court said data protection regulators in each of the European Union’s 28
> countries should have oversight over how companies collect and use online
> information of their countries’ citizens. Many European countries have
> widely varying stances towards privacy.
>
> Data protection advocates hailed the ruling. Industry executives and trade
> groups, though, said the decision left a huge amount of uncertainty for big
> companies. They called on the European Commission to complete a new safe
> agreement with the United States, a deal that has been negotiated for more
> than two years.
>
> Some European officials and many of the big technology companies, including
> Facebook and Microsoft, tried to play down the impact of the ruling, saying
> side agreements with the European Union should allow the companies to
> continue moving data across borders.
>
> But some of Europe’s national privacy watchdogs are expected to make it hard
> for large companies like Facebook to transfer Europeans’ information
> overseas under the current data arrangements. And the ruling appeared to
> leave smaller companies with fewer legal resources vulnerable to potential
> privacy violations.
>
> “We can’t assume that anything is now safe,” Brian Hengesbaugh, a privacy
> lawyer with Baker & McKenzie in Chicago who helped to negotiate the original
> safe harbor agreement. “The ruling is so sweepingly broad that any mechanism
> used to transfer data from Europe could be under threat.”
>
> At issue is the sort of personal data that people create when they post
> something on Facebook or other social media; when they do web searches on
> Google; or when they order products or buy movies from Amazon or Apple. Such
> data is hugely valuable to companies, which use it in a broad range of ways,
> including tailoring advertisements to individuals and promoting products or
> services based on users’ online activities.
>
> The data-transfer ruling does not apply solely to tech companies. It also
> affects any organization with international operations, such as when a
> company has employees in more than one region and needs to transfer payroll
> information or allow workers to manage their employee benefits online.
>
> Frans Timmermans, the first vice president for the European Commission,
> which will be charged with carrying out the ruling, tried to ease the
> concerns of companies on Tuesday. He said businesses could still move
> European data to the United States through other existing treaties.
>
> He added that the European Commission would work with national privacy
> regulators to ensure that the court’s decision was carried out in a uniform
> fashion across the entire region.
>
> “Citizens need robust safeguards,” said Mr. Timmermans. “And companies need
> certainty.”
>
> But it was unclear how bulletproof those treaties would be under the new
> ruling, which cannot be appealed and went into effect immediately. Europe’s
> privacy watchdogs, for example, remain divided over how to police American
> tech companies.
>
> France and Germany, where companies like Facebook and Google have huge
> numbers of users and have already been subject to other privacy rulings, are
> among the countries that have sought more aggressive protections for their
> citizens’ personal data. Britain and Ireland, among others, have been
> supportive of Safe Harbor, and many large American tech companies have set
> up overseas headquarters in Ireland.
>
> “For those who are willing to take on big companies, this ruling will have
> empowered them to act,” said Ot van Daalen, a Dutch privacy lawyer at
> Project Moore, who has been a vocal advocate for stricter data protection
> rules.
>
> The safe harbor agreement has been in place since 2000, enabling American
> tech companies to compile data generated by their European clients in web
> searches, social media posts and other online activities.
>
> Under the deal, more than 4,000 European and American companies had been
> expected to treat the information moved outside the European Union with the
> same privacy protections the data had inside the region. The United States
> government had lobbied aggressively in Brussels in recent months to keep the
> agreement in place.
>
> The United States and the European Union have worked for roughly two years
> on a new safe harbor agreement. The court’s ruling now puts pressure on
> negotiators to complete an agreement, but it may also complicate matters.
>
> Any new deal had already been expected to give Europeans greater say over
> how their online information is collected, transferred and managed by tech
> companies. But the talks have stalled over what type of access to European
> data American intelligence agencies should be given, according to several
> people with direct knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of
> anonymity.
>
> In addition, legal experts said that even if a new deal is reached, the
> court’s decision would would still give the national privacy regulators some
> say over the transfer of data.
>
> Penny Pritzker, the American secretary of commerce, said she was
> disappointed about the European court’s decision, adding she would work with
> the European Commission to finalize the new safe harbor agreement.In its
> ruling, the European court noted that the region’s 500 million citizens did
> not have the right to bring legal cases in United States courts if they
> believed their privacy had been infringed by American companies or by the
> United States government. A bill to provide this legal recourse is being
> debated in Congress, though analysts said it was unlikely to become law
> before the American elections next year.
>
> The legal ruling “puts at risk the thriving transatlantic digital economy,”
> she said in a statement on Tuesday.
>
> The lengthy negotiations have highlighted the different approaches to online
> data protection. In the United States, privacy is viewed as a consumer
> protection issue; in Europe, privacy is almost on a par with such
> fundamental rights as freedom of expression. Last year, Europe’s top court
> ruled that anyone with connections to the region could ask search engines
> like Google to remove links about themselves from online results. European
> campaigners said this so-called right to be forgotten ruling would help
> protect people’s online privacy, while many in the United States said the
> decision would curtail online freedom of speech.
>
> Those differences became more pronounced after Mr. Snowden revealed how
> American and British intelligence agencies had seemingly unfettered access
> to people’s online activities.
>
> “The United States safe harbor scheme thus enables interference, by United
> States public authorities, with the fundamental rights of persons,” the
> judges said in a statement on Tuesday, referring to access to European data
> by American intelligence agencies.
>
> The case reviewed by the European Court of Justice related to a complaint
> brought by Max Schrems, a 27-year-old Austrian graduate student, who argued
> that Europeans’ online data was misused when Facebook was said to have
> cooperated with the N.S.A.’s Prism program.
>
> That program is reported to have given the American agency significant
> access to data collected by several American tech companies. Facebook denies
> that the United States government had unlimited access to its users’ data.
>
> Mr. Snowden on Tuesday, after the court ruling, posted a message on Twitter
> praising Mr. Schrems: ‘‘Congratulations, @maxschrems. You’ve changed the
> world for the better.’’
>
> In a statement on Tuesday, Mr. Schrems, who is pursuing a separate civil
> class-action lawsuit against Facebook in an Austrian court, praised the
> decision.
>
> “Governments and businesses cannot simply ignore our fundamental right to
> privacy,” he said, “but must abide by the law and enforce it.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct  6 23:17:36 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:17:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] NYT: Data Transfer Pact Between U.S. and Europe Is
 Ruled Invalid
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBzmVLNe-vLW6kc3vbL+8zryO9kZyJ+cgU-NjpG2MbVoYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFBzmVLNe-vLW6kc3vbL+8zryO9kZyJ+cgU-NjpG2MbVoYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBzBJkaOp2C9V58ES3bFZEXt8Dr5R9N2iYDB7o652r2i0A@mail.gmail.com>

(small clarification below)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Data Transfer Pact Between U.S. and Europe Is Ruled Invalid:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/technology/european-union-us-data-collection.html
>
> Court of Justice Declares Irish Data Protection Commissioner's US Safe
> Harbour Decision Invalid:
> http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.pdf
>
>
> This is great, because it illustrates how a fundamental rights
> framework of a sorta-federalized type (in the EU) gives you a real
> basis for actual recourse -- courts are rooted properly, so, as in
> this case, they are a check assuring the priority of the people(s)'
> fundamental rights in relation to the government(s) (the Irish Data
> Protection Commissioner in this case).  (The EU's Charter of
> Fundamental Rights, crafted to acknowledge the fundamental rights the
> people[s] of the EU have claimed for themselves.)
>
> Note that this is fundamentally different from an international treaty
> on rights, which is not so rooted.  You don't have fundamental rights
> in the international arena.  Really.  That requires an act of the
> people setting limits on their governments, not among governments.

Correction:
That requires an act of the people (setting limits on their
government[s]), not an act among governments.

(That's what gets you a fundamental right "trump card," which is what
I explain in the next sentence)

(eoi)

>  A
> treaty among governments is essentially "statutory" at best, meaning
> the same "legislators" who wrote a human rights treaty can go ahead and
> qualify those rights through other treaties.
>
> Opinion:
> http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=168421&doclang=EN
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/technology/european-union-us-data-collection.html
>> Europe’s highest court on Tuesday struck down an international agreement
>> that allowed companies to move people’s digital data between the European
>> Union and the United States, leaving the international operations of
>> companies like Google and Facebook in a sort of legal limbo.
>>
>> The ruling, by the European Court of Justice, said the so-called safe harbor
>> agreement was flawed because it allowed American government authorities to
>> gain routine access to Europeans’ online information. The court said leaks
>> from Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security
>> Agency, made it clear that American intelligence agencies had almost
>> unfettered access to the data, infringing on Europeans’ rights to privacy.
>>
>> The court said data protection regulators in each of the European Union’s 28
>> countries should have oversight over how companies collect and use online
>> information of their countries’ citizens. Many European countries have
>> widely varying stances towards privacy.
>>
>> Data protection advocates hailed the ruling. Industry executives and trade
>> groups, though, said the decision left a huge amount of uncertainty for big
>> companies. They called on the European Commission to complete a new safe
>> agreement with the United States, a deal that has been negotiated for more
>> than two years.
>>
>> Some European officials and many of the big technology companies, including
>> Facebook and Microsoft, tried to play down the impact of the ruling, saying
>> side agreements with the European Union should allow the companies to
>> continue moving data across borders.
>>
>> But some of Europe’s national privacy watchdogs are expected to make it hard
>> for large companies like Facebook to transfer Europeans’ information
>> overseas under the current data arrangements. And the ruling appeared to
>> leave smaller companies with fewer legal resources vulnerable to potential
>> privacy violations.
>>
>> “We can’t assume that anything is now safe,” Brian Hengesbaugh, a privacy
>> lawyer with Baker & McKenzie in Chicago who helped to negotiate the original
>> safe harbor agreement. “The ruling is so sweepingly broad that any mechanism
>> used to transfer data from Europe could be under threat.”
>>
>> At issue is the sort of personal data that people create when they post
>> something on Facebook or other social media; when they do web searches on
>> Google; or when they order products or buy movies from Amazon or Apple. Such
>> data is hugely valuable to companies, which use it in a broad range of ways,
>> including tailoring advertisements to individuals and promoting products or
>> services based on users’ online activities.
>>
>> The data-transfer ruling does not apply solely to tech companies. It also
>> affects any organization with international operations, such as when a
>> company has employees in more than one region and needs to transfer payroll
>> information or allow workers to manage their employee benefits online.
>>
>> Frans Timmermans, the first vice president for the European Commission,
>> which will be charged with carrying out the ruling, tried to ease the
>> concerns of companies on Tuesday. He said businesses could still move
>> European data to the United States through other existing treaties.
>>
>> He added that the European Commission would work with national privacy
>> regulators to ensure that the court’s decision was carried out in a uniform
>> fashion across the entire region.
>>
>> “Citizens need robust safeguards,” said Mr. Timmermans. “And companies need
>> certainty.”
>>
>> But it was unclear how bulletproof those treaties would be under the new
>> ruling, which cannot be appealed and went into effect immediately. Europe’s
>> privacy watchdogs, for example, remain divided over how to police American
>> tech companies.
>>
>> France and Germany, where companies like Facebook and Google have huge
>> numbers of users and have already been subject to other privacy rulings, are
>> among the countries that have sought more aggressive protections for their
>> citizens’ personal data. Britain and Ireland, among others, have been
>> supportive of Safe Harbor, and many large American tech companies have set
>> up overseas headquarters in Ireland.
>>
>> “For those who are willing to take on big companies, this ruling will have
>> empowered them to act,” said Ot van Daalen, a Dutch privacy lawyer at
>> Project Moore, who has been a vocal advocate for stricter data protection
>> rules.
>>
>> The safe harbor agreement has been in place since 2000, enabling American
>> tech companies to compile data generated by their European clients in web
>> searches, social media posts and other online activities.
>>
>> Under the deal, more than 4,000 European and American companies had been
>> expected to treat the information moved outside the European Union with the
>> same privacy protections the data had inside the region. The United States
>> government had lobbied aggressively in Brussels in recent months to keep the
>> agreement in place.
>>
>> The United States and the European Union have worked for roughly two years
>> on a new safe harbor agreement. The court’s ruling now puts pressure on
>> negotiators to complete an agreement, but it may also complicate matters.
>>
>> Any new deal had already been expected to give Europeans greater say over
>> how their online information is collected, transferred and managed by tech
>> companies. But the talks have stalled over what type of access to European
>> data American intelligence agencies should be given, according to several
>> people with direct knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of
>> anonymity.
>>
>> In addition, legal experts said that even if a new deal is reached, the
>> court’s decision would would still give the national privacy regulators some
>> say over the transfer of data.
>>
>> Penny Pritzker, the American secretary of commerce, said she was
>> disappointed about the European court’s decision, adding she would work with
>> the European Commission to finalize the new safe harbor agreement.In its
>> ruling, the European court noted that the region’s 500 million citizens did
>> not have the right to bring legal cases in United States courts if they
>> believed their privacy had been infringed by American companies or by the
>> United States government. A bill to provide this legal recourse is being
>> debated in Congress, though analysts said it was unlikely to become law
>> before the American elections next year.
>>
>> The legal ruling “puts at risk the thriving transatlantic digital economy,”
>> she said in a statement on Tuesday.
>>
>> The lengthy negotiations have highlighted the different approaches to online
>> data protection. In the United States, privacy is viewed as a consumer
>> protection issue; in Europe, privacy is almost on a par with such
>> fundamental rights as freedom of expression. Last year, Europe’s top court
>> ruled that anyone with connections to the region could ask search engines
>> like Google to remove links about themselves from online results. European
>> campaigners said this so-called right to be forgotten ruling would help
>> protect people’s online privacy, while many in the United States said the
>> decision would curtail online freedom of speech.
>>
>> Those differences became more pronounced after Mr. Snowden revealed how
>> American and British intelligence agencies had seemingly unfettered access
>> to people’s online activities.
>>
>> “The United States safe harbor scheme thus enables interference, by United
>> States public authorities, with the fundamental rights of persons,” the
>> judges said in a statement on Tuesday, referring to access to European data
>> by American intelligence agencies.
>>
>> The case reviewed by the European Court of Justice related to a complaint
>> brought by Max Schrems, a 27-year-old Austrian graduate student, who argued
>> that Europeans’ online data was misused when Facebook was said to have
>> cooperated with the N.S.A.’s Prism program.
>>
>> That program is reported to have given the American agency significant
>> access to data collected by several American tech companies. Facebook denies
>> that the United States government had unlimited access to its users’ data.
>>
>> Mr. Snowden on Tuesday, after the court ruling, posted a message on Twitter
>> praising Mr. Schrems: ‘‘Congratulations, @maxschrems. You’ve changed the
>> world for the better.’’
>>
>> In a statement on Tuesday, Mr. Schrems, who is pursuing a separate civil
>> class-action lawsuit against Facebook in an Austrian court, praised the
>> decision.
>>
>> “Governments and businesses cannot simply ignore our fundamental right to
>> privacy,” he said, “but must abide by the law and enforce it.”
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.

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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Oct  7 07:40:09 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:10:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net> <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <56150499.7020807@itforchange.net>

Hi Milton

The problem and differences stem from a higher level. Let me see if I
can explain. You, and evidently the author of this paper, sees Internet
merely in terms of a market, competition and consumer viewpoint - as is
applicable to most economic good and services that we consume. I, and
many others, In fact I think most, see the Internet foremost as more of
a media, as an essential communication service and as a knowledge space
(aligned to fields like education, etc). The latter areas have always
had public interest regulation standards which were different and much
higher than for any normal market good or service.

Now, we have to first agree to what should be the basic social, and thus
political (meaning, relating to policy, regulation, etc). conception of
the Internet. And I dont think we agree here. I know you have for
decades been advocating the Internet as a bold new frontier which unlike
earlier communications services need no special regulation at all. The
problem is that I think most civil society people and groups, including
here, do not see the Internet like that, and connect well to its basic,
media, essential communication services, and knowledge sharing side.

Having very different socio-political conceptions of the Internet, there
is not much point in diving into the details, like relating to
competition policy issues, of the kind you present below.

But since the two arguments, 'how can we deny something to those who
have nothing' and 'can we deny the poor their choices' carry huge
rhetoric value, and could even be quite persuasive if not inspected
well, I must respond to them.

In most countries, media is regulated much beyond normal economic
regulation. For instance, in India, there are regulations vis a vis
clearly demarcating editorial content from paid-for one, even
proportions of time/ space between the two kind of content, and so on...
Now lets say, a media house proposes that it will supply free or very
cheap media especially for and to the poor if it is allowed to remain
unbound by such regulatory 'burden'. My direct question is: would you
recommend that such a thing be allowed, whether in the name of (argument
1), 'giving something to those who have nothing', or (argument 2)
'allowing them to exercise their free choice' (they are responsible
adults after all)?  I expect you, but if not you most other people here,
to say 'no' to any such offer.

That is almost exactly what facebook's zero-rated Internet.org offering
is about.. Like the poor cannot be allowed to be fed trash in the name
of media, they cannot be allowed to be fed trash in the name of the
Internet. But then, to understand/ accept this, you have to see the
Internet in certain ways rather than others, which as I discussed above,
I am not sure you do.

The problem with zero rating is that while it offers some immediate
benefits, it takes the Internet ecology towards long term structural
deformation and destruction... The issue is of crossing that sacred line
regarding the Internet being that which  at once connects us to everyone
and everything - and a zero rated service does not... Once we cross this
line, we lose one of the true building blocks of a different
communicative thinking and design that is behind the Internet that we
know, and accept a new kind of a building block and design, handing it
over to the commercial interests that hate the levelling tendency of the
Internet, and want to build an alternative kind of communicative space
which, while it reaches all ( for it must reach all for them to be
controlled) they can manipulate through different kinds of gatekeeping.
If we allow this most important rule to broken even once, there will be
a cascading effect, with newer and newer business models, nay Internets,
invented which all will be nothing like the Internet we know. Opposing
zero rating is about not allowing this sared line to be crossed, putting
all our weight in resistance. For if it gets if crossed once, I mean we
even normatively accept it and not just practically, it will let loose
an avalanche which can then never be stopped.

parminder



On Tuesday 06 October 2015 09:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> At the TPRC conference there was an interesting paper on Zero-rating.
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2587542
>
> Unfortunately it’s not downloadable yet. I attended this session
> however and while the methodology of this paper was not strong, it did
> raise some interesting questions about the attack on zero-rating. One
> of the most eye-opening findings was that the services or apps that
> were zero rated did not actually seem to benefit that much in terms of
> market share or demand. I know that minor incidences of zero-rating
> will not affect the fear of many that it could be abused by big
> players, but if it has truly strong and visible anti-competitive
> effects, then one should attack such practices on an adhoc basis using
> competition policy, not oppose all zero-rating in all situations by
> all market participants. It seems that zero-rating could be used by
> market entrants to gain a foothold in the market and increase
> competition in certain instances.
>
>  
>
> Regarding Facebook and Internet.org, let me see if I understand the
> argument: No access at all is preferable to limited access, and we
> shouldn’t allow anyone to make that choice for themselves. Is that it? ;-)
>
>  
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Suresh
> Ramasubramanian
> *Sent:* Monday, October 5, 2015 10:46 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
>
>  
>
> But it's interesting to see an articulate voice advocate "the other
> side" and call out some of the commentary on this issue as  ill
> informed and politically aimed rhetoric 
>
>  
>
> Engaging in debate would be useful so the author of this piece can get
> a more informed : balanced and less politically driven perspective of
> neutrality
>
>  
>
> http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html
>
> --srs
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151007/4310e31b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Oct  7 08:03:18 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:33:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <56150499.7020807@itforchange.net>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net> <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <56150499.7020807@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AEE817B9-2367-4368-8083-328FE183259F@hserus.net>

That was very persuasively argued 

However even in print media the lines tend to blur quite a lot.  And newspapers are traditionally sold well below the cost of even printing them, or even distributed free, as they are ad supported.  

Now - despite the print media being regulated - it generally requires personal ethics from the paper's editor and management for them to draw a clear line between news and advertising content.

The internet is much more complex to regulate in this manner as it is largely cross border and trans national in nature.  

Network connectivity and broadband pricing  is definitely fair game for regulation.  However given that the content model of Facebook (to take an example) is by and large user contributed with ads clearly demarcated as such - I don't see very much scope for editorial content or oversight here.

--srs

> On 07-Oct-2015, at 5:10 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Milton
> 
> The problem and differences stem from a higher level. Let me see if I can explain. You, and evidently the author of this paper, sees Internet merely in terms of a market, competition and consumer viewpoint - as is applicable to most economic good and services that we consume. I, and many others, In fact I think most, see the Internet foremost as more of a media, as an essential communication service and as a knowledge space (aligned to fields like education, etc). The latter areas have always had public interest regulation standards which were different and much       higher than for any normal market good or service. 
> 
> Now, we have to first agree to what should be the basic social, and thus political (meaning, relating to policy, regulation, etc). conception of the Internet. And I dont think we agree here. I know you have for decades been advocating the Internet as a bold new frontier which unlike earlier communications services need no special regulation at all. The problem is that I think most civil society people and groups, including here, do not see the Internet like that, and connect well to its basic, media, essential communication services, and knowledge sharing side. 
> 
> Having very different socio-political conceptions of the Internet, there is not much point in diving into the details, like relating to competition policy issues, of the kind you present below. 
> 
> But since the two arguments, 'how can we deny something to those who have nothing' and 'can we deny the poor their choices' carry huge rhetoric value, and could even be quite persuasive if not inspected well, I must respond to them.
> 
> In most countries, media is regulated much beyond normal economic regulation. For instance, in India, there are regulations vis a vis clearly demarcating editorial content from paid-for one, even proportions of time/ space between the two kind of content, and so on... Now lets say, a media house proposes that it will supply free or very cheap media especially for and to the poor if it is allowed to remain unbound by such regulatory 'burden'. My direct question is: would you recommend that such a thing be allowed, whether in the name of (argument 1), 'giving something to those who have nothing', or (argument 2) 'allowing them to exercise their free choice' (they are responsible adults after all)?  I expect you, but if not you most other people here, to say 'no' to any such offer. 
> 
> That is almost exactly what facebook's zero-rated Internet.org offering is about.. Like the poor cannot be allowed to be fed       trash in the name of media, they cannot be allowed to be fed trash in the name of the Internet. But then, to understand/ accept this, you have to see the Internet in certain ways rather than others, which as I discussed above, I am not sure you do. 
> 
> The problem with zero rating is that while it offers some immediate benefits, it takes the Internet ecology towards long term structural deformation and destruction... The issue is of crossing that sacred line regarding the Internet being that which  at once connects us to everyone and everything - and a zero rated service does not... Once we cross this line, we lose one of the true building blocks of a different communicative thinking and design that is behind the Internet that we know, and accept a new kind of a building block and design, handing it over to the commercial interests that hate the levelling tendency of the Internet, and want to build an alternative kind of communicative space which, while it reaches all ( for it must reach all for them to be controlled) they can manipulate through different kinds of       gatekeeping. If we allow this most important rule to broken even once, there will be a cascading effect, with newer and newer business models, nay Internets, invented which all will be nothing like the Internet we know. Opposing zero rating is about not allowing this sared line to be crossed, putting all our weight in resistance. For if it gets if crossed once, I mean we even normatively accept it and not just practically, it will let loose an avalanche which can then never be stopped. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tuesday 06 October 2015 09:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> At the TPRC conference there was an interesting paper on Zero-rating. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2587542
>> Unfortunately it’s not downloadable yet. I attended this session however and while the methodology of this paper was not strong, it did raise some interesting questions about the attack on zero-rating. One of the most eye-opening findings was that the services or apps that were zero rated did not actually seem to benefit that much in terms of market share or demand. I know that minor incidences of zero-rating will not affect the fear of many that it could be abused by big players, but if it has truly strong and visible anti-competitive effects, then one should attack such practices on an adhoc basis using competition policy, not oppose all zero-rating in all situations by all market participants. It seems that zero-rating could be used by market entrants to gain a foothold in the market and increase competition in certain instances.
>>  
>> Regarding Facebook and Internet.org, let me see if I understand the argument: No access at all is preferable to limited access, and we shouldn’t allow anyone to make that choice for themselves. Is that it? ;-)
>>  
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 10:46 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
>>  
>> But it's interesting to see an articulate voice advocate "the other side" and call out some of the commentary on this issue as  ill informed and politically aimed rhetoric 
>>  
>> Engaging in debate would be useful so the author of this piece can get a more informed : balanced and less politically driven perspective of neutrality
>>  
>> http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html
>> 
>> --srs
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151007/5d7c040b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Oct  7 10:59:43 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:59:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] NYT: Data Transfer Pact Between U.S. and Europe Is
 Ruled Invalid
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBzBJkaOp2C9V58ES3bFZEXt8Dr5R9N2iYDB7o652r2i0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFBzmVLNe-vLW6kc3vbL+8zryO9kZyJ+cgU-NjpG2MbVoYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBzBJkaOp2C9V58ES3bFZEXt8Dr5R9N2iYDB7o652r2i0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBw+YvSRMvod-vpCtpGedd020AGpAnSg2r8dQS7zPDHPfg@mail.gmail.com>

A few more comments posted elsewhere by email and on facebook:

(One more helpful sentence on this paragraph)

Note that this is fundamentally different from an international treaty
on rights, which is not so rooted. You don't have fundamental rights
in the international arena. Really. That requires an act of the
people(s) setting limits on their government(s), not an act among
governments. A treaty among governments is essentially "statutory" at
best, meaning the same "legislators" who wrote a human rights treaty
can go ahead and qualify those rights through other treaties. A judge
looking at a human rights treaty and a "war on terror" treaty can't do
strict scrutiny no matter how much the human rights treaty declares
the rights are "fundamental" -- she has to apply a balancing standard
at best, weighing the treaty to fight terror against the treaty on
rights and considering that the treaty-makers intended to qualify the
rights.


(and then:)

[. . .]

It finds that the US has provided its government means for public
authorities to get to the data addressed in the Safe Harbour scheme,
because it doesn't apply to the government and public authorities have
national security and other requirements that prevail over it. It says
for that reason it clearly doesn't provide fundamental rights
protection. It's a rather nice pointing out that the US is using
private parties and the international arena to "launder" surveillance
that the US government would be barred from doing itself under the US
Constitution. They get to make that point rather nicely without
actually examining the Safe Harbour Agreement more "technically," just
by pointing out that the agreement doesn't apply to the US government.

The ruling says EU national authorities can continue to examine the
adequacy of protections despite a Commission ruling that a third party
country's protections are adequate, and it bases that argument on the
need to have recourse to the courts, concluding that the national
authorities must be able to take it to the courts if they question the
Commission's ruling. It then proceeds to examine the Commission's
ruling, saying that the Commission did not actually address whether
the Safe Harbour Agreement protects fundamental rights as they are
provided for under the EU Charter, but rather only examined the Safe
Harbour scheme.

It also says anther very nice thing:

It says that generalized collection of personal data is not limiting
to what is strictly necessary -- which is somewhat similar to finding
that the generalized collection and storage of personal data is not
"narrowly tailored" to a compelling national interest purpose, which
is the kind of formula that would be applied in relation to a
fundamental right (such as that barring unreasonable searches and
seizures) under strict scrutiny in the US. So if we want to say that
mass collection of data violates fundamental rights even though the US
government says it will only do narrow searches on the whole mass of
data, the EU is helpfully almost-saying that that don't cut it. There
are still qualifications in how it's said, but the EU is helping a
bit. smile emoticon

[. . .]

It isn't that Safe Harbour fails to do what it says should happen.
It's actually saying more that the Safe Harbour agreement doesn't do
fundamental rights protections because it carves out a role for the US
government. Which is exactly the kind of legal examination you get
from a court that is rooted in acts of the people(s) limiting their
own governments. (It's also not what you get under international
treaties; we're seeing it here solely because the EU Court bases
fundamental rights in the several EU countries' foundations, not on
more flimsy international treaty bases)

It's really just pointing out exactly how the US is doing its
circumvention of fundamental rights regarding surveillance. Pretty
sweet.


Seth

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> (small clarification below)
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Data Transfer Pact Between U.S. and Europe Is Ruled Invalid:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/technology/european-union-us-data-collection.html
>>
>> Court of Justice Declares Irish Data Protection Commissioner's US Safe
>> Harbour Decision Invalid:
>> http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.pdf
>>
>>
>> This is great, because it illustrates how a fundamental rights
>> framework of a sorta-federalized type (in the EU) gives you a real
>> basis for actual recourse -- courts are rooted properly, so, as in
>> this case, they are a check assuring the priority of the people(s)'
>> fundamental rights in relation to the government(s) (the Irish Data
>> Protection Commissioner in this case).  (The EU's Charter of
>> Fundamental Rights, crafted to acknowledge the fundamental rights the
>> people[s] of the EU have claimed for themselves.)
>>
>> Note that this is fundamentally different from an international treaty
>> on rights, which is not so rooted.  You don't have fundamental rights
>> in the international arena.  Really.  That requires an act of the
>> people setting limits on their governments, not among governments.
>
> Correction:
> That requires an act of the people (setting limits on their
> government[s]), not an act among governments.
>
> (That's what gets you a fundamental right "trump card," which is what
> I explain in the next sentence)
>
> (eoi)
>
>>  A
>> treaty among governments is essentially "statutory" at best, meaning
>> the same "legislators" who wrote a human rights treaty can go ahead and
>> qualify those rights through other treaties.
>>
>> Opinion:
>> http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=168421&doclang=EN
>>
>>
>> Seth
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/technology/european-union-us-data-collection.html
>>> Europe’s highest court on Tuesday struck down an international agreement
>>> that allowed companies to move people’s digital data between the European
>>> Union and the United States, leaving the international operations of
>>> companies like Google and Facebook in a sort of legal limbo.
>>>
>>> The ruling, by the European Court of Justice, said the so-called safe harbor
>>> agreement was flawed because it allowed American government authorities to
>>> gain routine access to Europeans’ online information. The court said leaks
>>> from Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security
>>> Agency, made it clear that American intelligence agencies had almost
>>> unfettered access to the data, infringing on Europeans’ rights to privacy.
>>>
>>> The court said data protection regulators in each of the European Union’s 28
>>> countries should have oversight over how companies collect and use online
>>> information of their countries’ citizens. Many European countries have
>>> widely varying stances towards privacy.
>>>
>>> Data protection advocates hailed the ruling. Industry executives and trade
>>> groups, though, said the decision left a huge amount of uncertainty for big
>>> companies. They called on the European Commission to complete a new safe
>>> agreement with the United States, a deal that has been negotiated for more
>>> than two years.
>>>
>>> Some European officials and many of the big technology companies, including
>>> Facebook and Microsoft, tried to play down the impact of the ruling, saying
>>> side agreements with the European Union should allow the companies to
>>> continue moving data across borders.
>>>
>>> But some of Europe’s national privacy watchdogs are expected to make it hard
>>> for large companies like Facebook to transfer Europeans’ information
>>> overseas under the current data arrangements. And the ruling appeared to
>>> leave smaller companies with fewer legal resources vulnerable to potential
>>> privacy violations.
>>>
>>> “We can’t assume that anything is now safe,” Brian Hengesbaugh, a privacy
>>> lawyer with Baker & McKenzie in Chicago who helped to negotiate the original
>>> safe harbor agreement. “The ruling is so sweepingly broad that any mechanism
>>> used to transfer data from Europe could be under threat.”
>>>
>>> At issue is the sort of personal data that people create when they post
>>> something on Facebook or other social media; when they do web searches on
>>> Google; or when they order products or buy movies from Amazon or Apple. Such
>>> data is hugely valuable to companies, which use it in a broad range of ways,
>>> including tailoring advertisements to individuals and promoting products or
>>> services based on users’ online activities.
>>>
>>> The data-transfer ruling does not apply solely to tech companies. It also
>>> affects any organization with international operations, such as when a
>>> company has employees in more than one region and needs to transfer payroll
>>> information or allow workers to manage their employee benefits online.
>>>
>>> Frans Timmermans, the first vice president for the European Commission,
>>> which will be charged with carrying out the ruling, tried to ease the
>>> concerns of companies on Tuesday. He said businesses could still move
>>> European data to the United States through other existing treaties.
>>>
>>> He added that the European Commission would work with national privacy
>>> regulators to ensure that the court’s decision was carried out in a uniform
>>> fashion across the entire region.
>>>
>>> “Citizens need robust safeguards,” said Mr. Timmermans. “And companies need
>>> certainty.”
>>>
>>> But it was unclear how bulletproof those treaties would be under the new
>>> ruling, which cannot be appealed and went into effect immediately. Europe’s
>>> privacy watchdogs, for example, remain divided over how to police American
>>> tech companies.
>>>
>>> France and Germany, where companies like Facebook and Google have huge
>>> numbers of users and have already been subject to other privacy rulings, are
>>> among the countries that have sought more aggressive protections for their
>>> citizens’ personal data. Britain and Ireland, among others, have been
>>> supportive of Safe Harbor, and many large American tech companies have set
>>> up overseas headquarters in Ireland.
>>>
>>> “For those who are willing to take on big companies, this ruling will have
>>> empowered them to act,” said Ot van Daalen, a Dutch privacy lawyer at
>>> Project Moore, who has been a vocal advocate for stricter data protection
>>> rules.
>>>
>>> The safe harbor agreement has been in place since 2000, enabling American
>>> tech companies to compile data generated by their European clients in web
>>> searches, social media posts and other online activities.
>>>
>>> Under the deal, more than 4,000 European and American companies had been
>>> expected to treat the information moved outside the European Union with the
>>> same privacy protections the data had inside the region. The United States
>>> government had lobbied aggressively in Brussels in recent months to keep the
>>> agreement in place.
>>>
>>> The United States and the European Union have worked for roughly two years
>>> on a new safe harbor agreement. The court’s ruling now puts pressure on
>>> negotiators to complete an agreement, but it may also complicate matters.
>>>
>>> Any new deal had already been expected to give Europeans greater say over
>>> how their online information is collected, transferred and managed by tech
>>> companies. But the talks have stalled over what type of access to European
>>> data American intelligence agencies should be given, according to several
>>> people with direct knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of
>>> anonymity.
>>>
>>> In addition, legal experts said that even if a new deal is reached, the
>>> court’s decision would would still give the national privacy regulators some
>>> say over the transfer of data.
>>>
>>> Penny Pritzker, the American secretary of commerce, said she was
>>> disappointed about the European court’s decision, adding she would work with
>>> the European Commission to finalize the new safe harbor agreement.In its
>>> ruling, the European court noted that the region’s 500 million citizens did
>>> not have the right to bring legal cases in United States courts if they
>>> believed their privacy had been infringed by American companies or by the
>>> United States government. A bill to provide this legal recourse is being
>>> debated in Congress, though analysts said it was unlikely to become law
>>> before the American elections next year.
>>>
>>> The legal ruling “puts at risk the thriving transatlantic digital economy,”
>>> she said in a statement on Tuesday.
>>>
>>> The lengthy negotiations have highlighted the different approaches to online
>>> data protection. In the United States, privacy is viewed as a consumer
>>> protection issue; in Europe, privacy is almost on a par with such
>>> fundamental rights as freedom of expression. Last year, Europe’s top court
>>> ruled that anyone with connections to the region could ask search engines
>>> like Google to remove links about themselves from online results. European
>>> campaigners said this so-called right to be forgotten ruling would help
>>> protect people’s online privacy, while many in the United States said the
>>> decision would curtail online freedom of speech.
>>>
>>> Those differences became more pronounced after Mr. Snowden revealed how
>>> American and British intelligence agencies had seemingly unfettered access
>>> to people’s online activities.
>>>
>>> “The United States safe harbor scheme thus enables interference, by United
>>> States public authorities, with the fundamental rights of persons,” the
>>> judges said in a statement on Tuesday, referring to access to European data
>>> by American intelligence agencies.
>>>
>>> The case reviewed by the European Court of Justice related to a complaint
>>> brought by Max Schrems, a 27-year-old Austrian graduate student, who argued
>>> that Europeans’ online data was misused when Facebook was said to have
>>> cooperated with the N.S.A.’s Prism program.
>>>
>>> That program is reported to have given the American agency significant
>>> access to data collected by several American tech companies. Facebook denies
>>> that the United States government had unlimited access to its users’ data.
>>>
>>> Mr. Snowden on Tuesday, after the court ruling, posted a message on Twitter
>>> praising Mr. Schrems: ‘‘Congratulations, @maxschrems. You’ve changed the
>>> world for the better.’’
>>>
>>> In a statement on Tuesday, Mr. Schrems, who is pursuing a separate civil
>>> class-action lawsuit against Facebook in an Austrian court, praised the
>>> decision.
>>>
>>> “Governments and businesses cannot simply ignore our fundamental right to
>>> privacy,” he said, “but must abide by the law and enforce it.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.

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

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

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

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Wed Oct  7 14:28:26 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 18:28:26 +0000
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <56150499.7020807@itforchange.net>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net>
 <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <56150499.7020807@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589B6C979DEF3789D6B20ECAC360@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>



The problem and differences stem from a higher level. Let me see if I can explain. You, and evidently the author of this paper, sees Internet merely in terms of a market, competition and consumer viewpoint - as is applicable to most economic good and services that we consume.
MM: I reject the distinction. Unless you believe in magic, every good or service of every type that exists in society exists in an economic context, and thus must have a budget, must consume labor and capital resources as inputs, must be sustained in some way economically. You can remove services from certain forms of competitive market pressures, e.g., by regulating and subsidizing them, but that does not exempt them from basic forms of supply and demand, or from the budget constraint (the subsidies must come from somewhere), or from economic choice behavior by consumers (e.g., if the regulated or government-supplied service is bad people will find alternatives, which may even be formally illegal).
This rhetorical ploy (oh, this is a SPECIAL kind of service and thus basic facts about demand, supply and economic behavior suddenly don’t apply, and we can make up a whole new set of rules) isn’t going to work. Sorry.
I, and many others, In fact I think most, see the Internet foremost as more of a media, as an essential communication service and as a knowledge space (aligned to fields like education, etc). The latter areas have always had public interest regulation standards which were different and much higher than for any normal market good or service.
MM: Again, your worldview is so defined by your  ideology it is often blinding you to basic facts. Print media in much of the world are specifically exempted from “public interest regulation” precisely because they are seen as public media that must be shielded from control by the state. Education is indeed taken over by the state in most contemporary societies, and run as a compulsory monopoly, although prior to the 18 and 19th century it was not. (Your definition of “always” is rather ahistorical.) A growing number of people in the US, by the way, are fleeing that education monopoly and its biggest victims are poorer areas but that is another story. The classical post, telephone and telegraph monopoly was institutionalized by nation-states from the 17th century not because of public interest standards but so the state could retain control of its territory by controlling communications and surveillance; the “public interest” rationalization came much, much later (early 20th century). And that public interest regulatory system was systematically dismantled – to everyone’s benefit – in the 80s and 90s, as information and telecom liberalization took hold, and that is why we have a global, free internet.
Now, we have to first agree to what should be the basic social, and thus political (meaning, relating to policy, regulation, etc). conception of the Internet. And I dont think we agree here. I know you have for decades been advocating the Internet as a bold new frontier which unlike earlier communications services need no special regulation at all. The problem is that I think most civil society people and groups, including here, do not see the Internet like that, and connect well to its basic, media, essential communication services, and knowledge sharing side.
MM: Why don’t you speak for Parminder and not for global civil society? If these groups are actually here (most of them are not) they can speak for themselves. If they are not here you probably don’t know much about what they want or what they like. I do know that most of the European and American civil society groups have opposed regulating the internet and e.g., would not look kindly upon an intergovernmental treaty asserting control of it, whether in the name of public interest or some other claimed standard. I also know that most NN advocates tend to view NN as a form of retaining the freedom of the Internet (from control by ISPs) and not as a form of open-ended “public interest regulation” by the state. Indeed, the claim that NN would open the door to that kind of regulation was one of the strongest arguments against it.
But since the two arguments, 'how can we deny something to those who have nothing' and 'can we deny the poor their choices' carry huge rhetoric value, and could even be quite persuasive if not inspected well, I must respond to them.
MM: These are rather simple, straightforward questions, not rhetoric. It will be interesting to see how you avoid answering them.
In most countries, media is regulated much beyond normal economic regulation. For instance, in India, there are regulations vis a vis clearly demarcating editorial content from paid-for one, even proportions of time/ space between the two kind of content, and so on...
MM: This is not “beyond normal economic regulation.” Compared to the panoply of regulations the Indian license Raj imposes on many many other businesses, it sounds typical. So there goes your exceptionalism argument. Or put differently, every industry is “exceptional” and people can come up with some reason to regulate it.
Now let’s say, a media house proposes that it will supply free or very cheap media especially for and to the poor if it is allowed to remain unbound by such regulatory 'burden'. My direct question is: would you recommend that such a thing be allowed, whether in the name of (argument 1), 'giving something to those who have nothing', or (argument 2) 'allowing them to exercise their free choice' (they are responsible adults after all)?  I expect you, but if not you most other people here, to say 'no' to any such offer.
MM: Let’s be more specific. I am going to offer free “Internet” service to the entire population of the Mumbai slums, but 50% of their time would be nothing but ads, and the other 50% would be whatever they wanted (Presumably, the 50/50 ratio violates current media regulations).
I would say, let it happen. I know you tend to believe that people are stupid and they need elite civil society leaders to tell them what is good for them, but I tend to support letting them decide for themselves whether the value proposition is worth it. I suspect not many people would go for that 50/50 proposition, and those who did would find ways to let the useless ads run by them while they did something else. And the offerer of such a service would have economic constraints, too: if the ads were so burdensome no one would take the service and no advertisers would pay them to be on it.
The problem with zero rating is that while it offers some immediate benefits, it takes the Internet ecology towards long term structural deformation and destruction...
MM: The paper I cited, while far from conclusive, at least offers a bit of evidence regarding this assertion. You offer nothing but assertion. Oh, and some dose of self-righteousness. This is an empirical question. Give me some evidence.
The issue is of crossing that sacred line regarding the Internet being that which  at once connects us to everyone and everything - and a zero rated service does not...
MM: Ah, I see you do not even know what zero-rating is. Zero rating does not involve access restrictions. It involves not counting particular services against a data consumption limit. Sorry we didn’t get this definition out of the way first.
Once we cross this line, we lose one of the true building blocks of a different communicative thinking and design that is behind the Internet that we know, and accept a new kind of a building block and design, handing it over to the commercial interests that hate the levelling tendency of the Internet, and want to build an alternative kind of communicative space which
MM: There are many commercial, as well as noncommercial interests who value the so-called levelling tendency of the internet, and insofar as the public demands this they will (and are) paying for it. The NN movement was backed by the OTT service providers (including Facebook and Google). Further, I don’t see any evidence that you really know shit about the “communicative thinking and design that is behind the internet.” But perhaps you can explain the end to end argument to me and how it meshes with your idea about centralized regulation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151007/70914116/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Wed Oct  7 23:13:44 2015
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:43:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Access at the cost of Net neutrality?
Message-ID: <5615DF68.5010608@ITforChange.net>

Suhrith Parthasarathy
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality/article7735242.ece

In the Net neutrality debate, there is a conflict between two core 
values: ease of access and neutrality. The ease of access promised by 
applications like Free Basics compromises neutrality and may later morph 
into a method of predatory pricingIf programs that bring access to a 
part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench 
themselves, it could eventually lead to telecom companies abusing their 
dominant positionsIn the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral 
Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to 
discriminate between different applications. Though they have not yet 
exploited this autonomy fully, they are certainly moving towards that.

Earlier this year, the social media giant, Facebook, formalised a 
partnership 
<http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/facebook-rings-reliance-communications-for-free-data-access/article6878396.ece> 
with Reliance Communications that enabled the Indian company to provide 
access to over 30 different websites, without any charge on mobile data 
accruing to the ultimate user. The platform, originally known as 
“Internet.org,” has now been rebranded 
<http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/facebook-rebrands-internetorg-platform-as-free-basics-by-facebook/article7686680.ece> 
as “Free Basics,” Facebook announced last month. Its fundamental ethos, 
though, remains unchanged. It allows Reliance’s subscribers to surf 
completely free of cost a bouquet of websites covered within the scheme, 
which includes, quite naturally, facebook.com <http://facebook.com>. 
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, views this supposed initiative as a 
philanthropic gesture, as part of a purported, larger aim to bring 
access to the Internet to those people who find the costs of using 
generally available mobile data prohibitive.

*Neutrality, an interpretive concept*

On the face of it, this supposed act of altruism appears to be 
commendable. But, there are many critics — some of whom have come 
together to launch a website “savetheinternet.in 
<http://savetheinternet.in>” with a view to defending Internet freedom — 
who argue that Free Basics violates what has come to be known as the 
principle of network (or Net) neutrality.

While it is clear to all of us that a notion of Net neutrality involves 
some regulation of the Internet, it is less clear what the term actually 
means. Like any phrase that involves either a moral or a legal 
obligation, Net neutrality is also an interpretive concept. People who 
employ the term to denote some sort of binding commitment, or at the 
least an aspirational norm, often tend to disagree over precisely how 
the idea ought to be accomplished. Tim Wu — an American lawyer and 
presently a professor at the Columbia University — who coined the term, 
views the notion of Net neutrality as signifying an Internet that does 
not favour any one application over another. In other words, the idea is 
to ensure that Internet service providers do not discriminate content by 
either charging a fee for acting as its carrier or by incorporating any 
technical qualifications.

In India, there is no law that expressly mandates the maintenance of a 
neutral Internet. This March, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India 
(TRAI) released a draft consultation paper 
<http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/trai-seeks-views-to-regulate-netbased-calling-messaging-apps/article7039815.ece>seeking 
the public’s views on whether the Internet needed regulation. 
Unfortunately, much of its attention was focussed on the supposedly 
pernicious impact 
<http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/policy-proposes-storage-of-all-messages-mandatory-for-90-days/article7674762.ece>of 
applications such as WhatsApp and Viber. “In a multi-ethnic society 
there is a vital need,” wrote TRAI, “to ensure that the social 
equilibrium is not impacted adversely by communications that inflame 
passions, disturb law and order and lead to sectarian disputes.” The 
questions, therefore, in its view were these: should at least some 
Internet applications be amenable to a greater regulation, and should 
they compensate the telecom service providers in addition to the data 
charges that the consumers pay directly for the use of mobile Internet?

If the government eventually answers these questions in the affirmative, 
the consequences could be drastic. It could lead to a classification of 
Internet applications based on arbitrary grounds, by bringing some of 
them, whom the government views as harmful to society in some manner or 
another, within its regulatory net. Through such a move, the state, 
contrary to helping establish principles of Net neutrality as a rule of 
law, would be actively promoting an unequal Internet.

In any event, as things stand, in the absence of a specific law 
mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual /carte 
blanche/ to discriminate between different applications. Though these 
companies have not yet completely exploited this autonomy, they are 
certainly proceeding towards such an exercise. In April this year, 
Airtel announced Airtel Zero 
<http://www.thehindu.com/business/airtel-launches-platform-offering-free-access-to-certain-apps/article7077204.ece>, 
an initiative that would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel 
in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.

On the face of it, this programme appears opposed to Net neutrality. But 
what is even more alarming is that mobile Internet service providers 
could, in the future, plausibly also control the speeds at which 
different applications are delivered to consumers. For example, if 
WhatsApp were to subscribe to Airtel Zero by paying the fee demanded by 
the company, Airtel might accede to offering WhatsApp to consumers at a 
pace superior to that at which other applications are run. This kind of 
discrimination, as Nikhil Pahwa, one of the pioneers of the Save The 
Internet campaign, has argued, is prototypically opposed to Net 
neutrality. It tends to breed an unequal playing field, and, if allowed 
to subsist, it could create a deep division in the online world. 
Ultimately, we must view Net neutrality as a concept that stands for the 
values that we want to build as a society; it pertains to concerns about 
ensuring freedom of expression and about creating an open space for 
ideas where democracy can thrive. There is a tendency, though, to view 
those who support Net neutrality as representing a supercilious 
position. Such criticism is unquestionably blinkered, but it also 
highlights certain telling concerns.

Telecom companies that wish to discriminate between applications argue 
that in the absence of an Internet that has completely permeated all 
strata of society, an obligation to maintain neutrality is not only 
unreasonable on the companies, but also unfair on the consumer. After 
all, if nothing else, Airtel Zero and Free Basics bring, at the least, 
some portions of the Internet to people who otherwise have no means to 
access the web. What we have, therefore, at some level, is a clash of 
values: between access to the Internet (in a limited form) and the 
maintenance of neutrality in an atmosphere that is inherently unequal. 
This makes tailoring a solution to the problem a particularly arduous 
process.

The Internet, in its purest form, is a veritable fountain of 
information. At its core lies a commitment to both openness and a level 
playing field, where an ability to innovate is perennially maintained. 
It is difficult to argue against Facebook when it says that some access 
is better than no access at all. But one of the problems with Free 
Basics, and indeed with Airtel Zero too, is that the consumer has no 
choice in which websites he or she might want to access free of cost. If 
this decision is made only by Facebook, which might argue that it gives 
every developer an equal chance to be a part of its project as long as 
it meets a certain criteria, what we have is almost a paternalistic web. 
In such a situation, information, far from being free, is shackled by 
constraints imposed by the service provider.

*Laudable end, unethical means*

This is precisely one of the concerns raised by those arguing in favour 
of Net neutrality, who, it is worth bearing in mind, aren’t resistant to 
the idea of a greater penetration of the Internet. Their apprehensions 
lie in companies resorting to what they believe is an unethical means to 
achieving, at least in theory, a laudable end. Accord\\ing to them, 
negating Net neutrality, in a bid to purportedly achieve greater access 
to the Internet in the immediate future, could prove profoundly 
injurious in the long run. Yes, Airtel Zero and Free Basics would bring 
to the less-privileged amongst us some access to the Internet, but the 
question is this: at what cost?

The worry is that if the programs that bring access to a part of the 
Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could 
eventually lead to these telecom companies abusing their dominant 
positions. No doubt, as Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre 
for Internet and Society, has argued, it might require a deeper analysis 
to argue convincingly that packages such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero 
require immediate invalidation in their present forms; significantly, 
the former does not demand payments from the applications while the 
latter is premised on such consideration. But, viewed holistically, the 
companies’ actions could potentially be characterised as a form of 
predatory pricing, where consumers might benefit in the short run, only 
for serious damage to ensue to competition in the long run.

It is, therefore, necessary that any debate on the issue must address 
the tension between the two apparently conflicting goals — the 
importance of maintaining a neutral Internet and the need to ensure a 
greater access to the web across the country. Mr. Zuckerberg argues that 
these two values are not fundamentally opposed to each other, but can — 
and must — coexist. He is possibly correct at a theoretical level.

But the history of markets tells us that we have to be very careful in 
allowing predatory practices, devised to achieve short-term goals, to go 
unbridled. As citizens, each of us has a fundamental right to freedom of 
speech and expression. If we were to get the balance between these two 
values wrong, if we were to allow the domination, by a few parties, of 
appliances that facilitate a free exchange of ideas, in a manner that 
impinges on the Internet’s neutrality, our most cherished civil 
liberties could well be put to grave danger.

(/Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate in the Madras High Court./)

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

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Fri Oct  9 06:25:52 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:25:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Princeton CITP Conference on Internet
 Censorship, Interference and Control
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk03yxABuYDmbHXXv9M6FUNJk6_owCZ6ZNKjyNGMVY_BuA@mail.gmail.com>

CITP's first conference of the academic year. It will be archived on
YouTube, but not for a few days, so best to tune in live.


joly posted: "Today, Friday October 9 2015 the Princeton Center for
Information Technology Policy aka CITP will present a Conference on
Internet Censorship, Interference, and Control which will examine questions
like: What is the current state of internet accessibility"


<https://citp.princeton.edu/event/conference-on-internet-censorship-interference-and-control/>Today,
*Friday October 9 2015* the *Princeton Center for Information Technology
Policy <https://citp.princeton.edu/> *aka CITP will present a *Conference
on Internet Censorship, Interference, and Control
<https://citp.princeton.edu/event/conference-on-internet-censorship-interference-and-control/>
*which will examine questions like: What is the current state of internet
accessibility, and what technologies and policies can help protect
international security and human rights in this area? This conference will
explore research by both computer scientists and political scientists into
internet censorship, interference, and control. We will consider
interdisciplinary perspectives on relevant contemporary questions: What is
the state of the art in network measurement, and how can information about
social and political conditions better inform future measurements? How
should computer scientists measure and study offensive technologies, such
as China’s denial of service attacks on Github, and what role should policy
play in responding to these security threats? How extensive are national
firewalls, internet surveillance, and filter bubbles, and how should
citizens and governments respond? Speakers include *Wendy Seltzer* and *Roger
Dingledine*. The conference will be streamed live via *Princeton Media
Central <http://mediacentrallive.princeton.edu/>*






*What: CITP Conference on Internet Censorship, Interference, and Control
<https://citp.princeton.edu/event/conference-on-internet-censorship-interference-and-control/>
Where: Princeton University, NJ When: Friday October 9 2015 9am-3:30pm EDT
| 13:00-19:30 UTC Agenda:
https://citp.princeton.edu/event/conference-on-internet-censorship-interference-and-control/
<https://citp.princeton.edu/event/conference-on-internet-censorship-interference-and-control/>
Webcast: http://mediacentrallive.princeton.edu/
<http://mediacentrallive.princeton.edu/> Twitter: @PrincetonCITP
<https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%40PrincetonCITP&src=typd>*


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8104#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8104#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8104




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151009/6664315a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Oct 10 06:38:09 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 16:08:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589B6C979DEF3789D6B20ECAC360@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net> <DM2PR07MB589AA500A950C84F2E19736AC370@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <56150499.7020807@itforchange.net> <DM2PR07MB589B6C979DEF3789D6B20ECAC360@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5618EA91.5000907@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 07 October 2015 11:58 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> The problem and differences stem from a higher level. Let me see if I
> can explain. You, and evidently the author of this paper, sees
> Internet merely in terms of a market, competition and consumer
> viewpoint - as is applicable to most economic good and services that
> we consume.
>
> MM: I reject the distinction. Unless you believe in magic, every good
> or service of every type that exists in society exists in an economic
> context, and thus must have a budget, must consume labor and capital
> resources as inputs, must be sustained in some way economically.
>

Milton, You are arguing what you want to argue and not against anything
I said - normally called the strawman strategy... Labouring to tell me
that Internet services takes resources to make them available is
something quite besides the point . Of course they do. See above, I *did
not* say that Internet is not an issue of market, competition and
consumers, but that it is not *merely* that, and in the view of most
people it is something much more - and I gave the example of some areas
closely allied to the Internet like media, education and knowledge,
which are typically looked at from a larger than 'merely a market point
of view'.. For that reason the Internet as these other areas will be
subject to policies and regulations beyond those that concern markets.

If you were to take a vote even just on this list, I bet more than 80
percent people will agree that the Internet is quite more than just a
market phenomenon, and should be treated as such. That is all I am saying.

Below, you have tried many irrelevant arguments, like about an
international treaty on the Internet. That was never being discussed - 
but net neutrality *regulation* is being duscussed. And so, instead of
saying how "most of the European and American civil society groups have
opposed regulating the internet" , why dont you just speak about what
you think is the view of most EU and US CS groups *on net neutrality
regulation*. Are you saying they are against it? Please do let me know.
Replying to this question would be sticking to what we are actually
discussing and not defensively shifting to irrelevant issues. BTW, you
can also let us know what you think of net neutrality regulation.
(Instead of telling think about an inter gov treaty or Internet
regulation in general)

Meanwhile I do note your aversion to public provisioning of education,
and the of course then you'd be against such provisioning of health
services as well. People here need to know your such positions.

Answering  your direct question, whether I would want any effort to give
Internet for 50 percent time  interspersed with advertisement for the
rest of the 50 percent time  dis-allowed through regulation; yes, I
would. In a similar way that TV broadcasters in India are allowed no
more that I think it is 12mins of ad in an hour or broadcast.

As for your contention that I do not even know what zero rating is
about, I can clearly see that you have no idea  what zero rating issue
really is about in developing countries,

Lastly, about your statement  "you really know shit about the
“communicative thinking and design that is behind the internet"  I will
just advice you to mind your language...

parminder

> You can remove services from certain forms of competitive market
> pressures, e.g., by regulating and subsidizing them, but that does not
> exempt them from basic forms of supply and demand, or from the budget
> constraint (the subsidies must come from somewhere), or from economic
> choice behavior by consumers (e.g., if the regulated or
> government-supplied service is bad people will find alternatives,
> which may even be formally illegal).
>
> This rhetorical ploy (oh, this is a SPECIAL kind of service and thus
> basic facts about demand, supply and economic behavior suddenly don’t
> apply, and we can make up a whole new set of rules) isn’t going to
> work. Sorry.
>
> I, and many others, In fact I think most, see the Internet foremost as
> more of a media, as an essential communication service and as a
> knowledge space (aligned to fields like education, etc). The latter
> areas have always had public interest regulation standards which were
> different and much higher than for any normal market good or service.
>
> MM: Again, your worldview is so defined by your  ideology it is often
> blinding you to basic facts. Print media in much of the world are
> specifically exempted from “public interest regulation” precisely
> because they are seen as public media that must be shielded from
> control by the state. Education is indeed taken over by the state in
> most contemporary societies, and run as a compulsory monopoly,
> although prior to the 18 and 19^th century it was not. (Your
> definition of “always” is rather ahistorical.) A growing number of
> people in the US, by the way, are fleeing that education monopoly and
> its biggest victims are poorer areas but that is another story. The
> classical post, telephone and telegraph monopoly was institutionalized
> by nation-states from the 17^th century not because of public interest
> standards but so the state could retain control of its territory by
> controlling communications and surveillance; the “public interest”
> rationalization came much, much later (early 20^th century). And that
> public interest regulatory system was systematically dismantled – to
> everyone’s benefit – in the 80s and 90s, as information and telecom
> liberalization took hold, and that is why we have a global, free
> internet.
>
> Now, we have to first agree to what should be the basic social, and
> thus political (meaning, relating to policy, regulation, etc).
> conception of the Internet. And I dont think we agree here. I know you
> have for decades been advocating the Internet as a bold new frontier
> which unlike earlier communications services need no special
> regulation at all. The problem is that I think most civil society
> people and groups, including here, do not see the Internet like that,
> and connect well to its basic, media, essential communication
> services, and knowledge sharing side.
>
> MM: Why don’t you speak for Parminder and not for global civil
> society? If these groups are actually here (most of them are not) they
> can speak for themselves. If they are not here you probably don’t know
> much about what they want or what they like. I do know that most of
> the European and American civil society groups have opposed regulating
> the internet and e.g., would not look kindly upon an intergovernmental
> treaty asserting control of it, whether in the name of public interest
> or some other claimed standard. I also know that most NN advocates
> tend to view NN as a form of retaining the freedom of the Internet
> (from control by ISPs) and not as a form of open-ended “public
> interest regulation” by the state. Indeed, the claim that NN would
> open the door to that kind of regulation was one of the strongest
> arguments against it.
>
> But since the two arguments, 'how can we deny something to those who
> have nothing' and 'can we deny the poor their choices' carry huge
> rhetoric value, and could even be quite persuasive if not inspected
> well, I must respond to them.
>
> MM: These are rather simple, straightforward questions, not rhetoric.
> It will be interesting to see how you avoid answering them.
>
> In most countries, media is regulated much beyond normal economic
> regulation. For instance, in India, there are regulations vis a vis
> clearly demarcating editorial content from paid-for one, even
> proportions of time/ space between the two kind of content, and so on...
>
> MM: This is not “beyond normal economic regulation.” Compared to the
> panoply of regulations the Indian license Raj imposes on many many
> other businesses, it sounds typical. So there goes your exceptionalism
> argument. Or put differently, every industry is “exceptional” and
> people can come up with some reason to regulate it.
>
> Now let’s say, a media house proposes that it will supply free or very
> cheap media especially for and to the poor if it is allowed to remain
> unbound by such regulatory 'burden'. My direct question is: would you
> recommend that such a thing be allowed, whether in the name of
> (argument 1), 'giving something to those who have nothing', or
> (argument 2) 'allowing them to exercise their free choice' (they are
> responsible adults after all)?  I expect you, but if not you most
> other people here, to say 'no' to any such offer.
>
> MM: Let’s be more specific. I am going to offer free “Internet”
> service to the entire population of the Mumbai slums, but 50% of their
> time would be nothing but ads, and the other 50% would be whatever
> they wanted (Presumably, the 50/50 ratio violates current media
> regulations).
>
> I would say, let it happen. I know you tend to believe that people are
> stupid and they need elite civil society leaders to tell them what is
> good for them, but I tend to support letting them decide for
> themselves whether the value proposition is worth it. I suspect not
> many people would go for that 50/50 proposition, and those who did
> would find ways to let the useless ads run by them while they did
> something else. And the offerer of such a service would have economic
> constraints, too: if the ads were so burdensome no one would take the
> service and no advertisers would pay them to be on it.
>
> The problem with zero rating is that while it offers some immediate
> benefits, it takes the Internet ecology towards long term structural
> deformation and destruction...
>
> MM: The paper I cited, while far from conclusive, at least offers a
> bit of evidence regarding this assertion. You offer nothing but
> assertion. Oh, and some dose of self-righteousness. This is an
> empirical question. Give me some evidence.
>
> The issue is of crossing that sacred line regarding the Internet being
> that which  at once connects us to everyone and everything - and a
> zero rated service does not...
>
> MM: Ah, I see you do not even know what zero-rating is. Zero rating
> does not involve access restrictions. It involves not counting
> particular services against a data consumption limit. Sorry we didn’t
> get this definition out of the way first.
>
> Once we cross this line, we lose one of the true building blocks of a
> different communicative thinking and design that is behind the
> Internet that we know, and accept a new kind of a building block and
> design, handing it over to the commercial interests that hate the
> levelling tendency of the Internet, and want to build an alternative
> kind of communicative space which
>
> MM: There are many commercial, as well as noncommercial interests who
> value the so-called levelling tendency of the internet, and insofar as
> the public demands this they will (and are) paying for it. The NN
> movement was backed by the OTT service providers (including Facebook
> and Google). Further, I don’t see any evidence that you really know
> shit about the “communicative thinking and design that is behind the
> internet.” But perhaps you can explain the end to end argument to me
> and how it meshes with your idea about centralized regulation.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151010/9802d204/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 10 10:34:50 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:34:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] Access at the cost of Net neutrality?
In-Reply-To: <5615DF68.5010608@ITforChange.net>
References: <5615DF68.5010608@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <5619220A.3030602@riseup.net>


Dear friends,

this mail i received on the [governance] list. But, i think, it is a 
general question.

Based on the transport mechanism, and only of that, Net neutrality means 
the neutrality of transport. This is possible, because we never look 
inside the data. Who is the sender, who the receiver, what protocol is used.

But we have two different transport types. Asynchron and synchron. The 
mostly, what we use, is asynchron. We have no time restriction.

Synchron means, that we have some time restriction and we have to follow 
it. But we know, the synchron packets are mostly very small.

And in the synchron packet stream, we have only one with the highest 
priority: The emergency call of people. Never any packets from state 
institutions, military and paramilitary organisations, private 
organisation and so on. Only packets, to inform people that other people 
need our help.

This principles comes from the real processing of transport of digital 
data in packet form. It have nothing to do with, what people speak 
about, they sit in any office or meetings and speak about.

I do not understand, why Guru speak about "Inetnet.org" or similar 
things. It is not our theme. Our themes are, to organize a InterNet, 
that is really a InterNet. We always see only fog clouds. And i ask you: 
Why?

many greetings, willi
Georgetown, Guyana (brit. Guiana)



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [governance] Access at the cost of Net neutrality?
Datum: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:43:44 +0530
Von: Guru <Guru at ITforChange.net>
An: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, forum at justnetcoalition.org

Suhrith Parthasarathy
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality/article7735242.ece

In the Net neutrality debate, there is a conflict between two core
values: ease of access and neutrality. The ease of access promised by
applications like Free Basics compromises neutrality and may later morph 
into a method of predatory pricingIf programs that bring access to a 
part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench
themselves, it could eventually lead to telecom companies abusing their
dominant positionsIn the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral
Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to
discriminate between different applications. Though they have not yet
exploited this autonomy fully, they are certainly moving towards that.

Earlier this year, the social media giant, Facebook, formalised a
partnership
<http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/facebook-rings-reliance-communications-for-free-data-access/article6878396.ece> 

with Reliance Communications that enabled the Indian company to provide
access to over 30 different websites, without any charge on mobile data
accruing to the ultimate user. The platform, originally known as
“Internet.org,” has now been rebranded
<http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/facebook-rebrands-internetorg-platform-as-free-basics-by-facebook/article7686680.ece> 

as “Free Basics,” Facebook announced last month. Its fundamental ethos,
though, remains unchanged. It allows Reliance’s subscribers to surf
completely free of cost a bouquet of websites covered within the scheme, 
which includes, quite naturally, facebook.com <http://facebook.com>. 
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, views this supposed initiative as a 
philanthropic gesture, as part of a purported, larger aim to bring 
access to the Internet to those people who find the costs of using 
generally available mobile data prohibitive.

*Neutrality, an interpretive concept*

On the face of it, this supposed act of altruism appears to be
commendable. But, there are many critics — some of whom have come
together to launch a website “savetheinternet.in
<http://savetheinternet.in>” with a view to defending Internet freedom — 
who argue that Free Basics violates what has come to be known as the
principle of network (or Net) neutrality.

While it is clear to all of us that a notion of Net neutrality involves
some regulation of the Internet, it is less clear what the term actually 
means. Like any phrase that involves either a moral or a legal
obligation, Net neutrality is also an interpretive concept. People who
employ the term to denote some sort of binding commitment, or at the
least an aspirational norm, often tend to disagree over precisely how
the idea ought to be accomplished. Tim Wu — an American lawyer and
presently a professor at the Columbia University — who coined the term,
views the notion of Net neutrality as signifying an Internet that does
not favour any one application over another. In other words, the idea is 
to ensure that Internet service providers do not discriminate content by 
either charging a fee for acting as its carrier or by incorporating any 
technical qualifications.

In India, there is no law that expressly mandates the maintenance of a
neutral Internet. This March, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
(TRAI) released a draft consultation paper
<http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/trai-seeks-views-to-regulate-netbased-calling-messaging-apps/article7039815.ece>seeking 

the public’s views on whether the Internet needed regulation.
Unfortunately, much of its attention was focussed on the supposedly
pernicious impact
<http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/policy-proposes-storage-of-all-messages-mandatory-for-90-days/article7674762.ece>of 

applications such as WhatsApp and Viber. “In a multi-ethnic society
there is a vital need,” wrote TRAI, “to ensure that the social
equilibrium is not impacted adversely by communications that inflame
passions, disturb law and order and lead to sectarian disputes.” The
questions, therefore, in its view were these: should at least some
Internet applications be amenable to a greater regulation, and should
they compensate the telecom service providers in addition to the data
charges that the consumers pay directly for the use of mobile Internet?

If the government eventually answers these questions in the affirmative, 
the consequences could be drastic. It could lead to a classification of 
Internet applications based on arbitrary grounds, by bringing some of 
them, whom the government views as harmful to society in some manner or 
another, within its regulatory net. Through such a move, the state, 
contrary to helping establish principles of Net neutrality as a rule of 
law, would be actively promoting an unequal Internet.

In any event, as things stand, in the absence of a specific law
mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual /carte
blanche/ to discriminate between different applications. Though these
companies have not yet completely exploited this autonomy, they are
certainly proceeding towards such an exercise. In April this year,
Airtel announced Airtel Zero
<http://www.thehindu.com/business/airtel-launches-platform-offering-free-access-to-certain-apps/article7077204.ece>, 

an initiative that would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel 
in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.

On the face of it, this programme appears opposed to Net neutrality. But 
what is even more alarming is that mobile Internet service providers 
could, in the future, plausibly also control the speeds at which 
different applications are delivered to consumers. For example, if 
WhatsApp were to subscribe to Airtel Zero by paying the fee demanded by 
the company, Airtel might accede to offering WhatsApp to consumers at a 
pace superior to that at which other applications are run. This kind of 
discrimination, as Nikhil Pahwa, one of the pioneers of the Save The 
Internet campaign, has argued, is prototypically opposed to Net 
neutrality. It tends to breed an unequal playing field, and, if allowed 
to subsist, it could create a deep division in the online world. 
Ultimately, we must view Net neutrality as a concept that stands for the 
values that we want to build as a society; it pertains to concerns about 
ensuring freedom of expression and about creating an open space for 
ideas where democracy can thrive. There is a tendency, though, to view 
those who support Net neutrality as representing a supercilious 
position. Such criticism is unquestionably blinkered, but it also 
highlights certain telling concerns.

Telecom companies that wish to discriminate between applications argue
that in the absence of an Internet that has completely permeated all
strata of society, an obligation to maintain neutrality is not only
unreasonable on the companies, but also unfair on the consumer. After
all, if nothing else, Airtel Zero and Free Basics bring, at the least,
some portions of the Internet to people who otherwise have no means to
access the web. What we have, therefore, at some level, is a clash of
values: between access to the Internet (in a limited form) and the
maintenance of neutrality in an atmosphere that is inherently unequal.
This makes tailoring a solution to the problem a particularly arduous
process.

The Internet, in its purest form, is a veritable fountain of
information. At its core lies a commitment to both openness and a level
playing field, where an ability to innovate is perennially maintained.
It is difficult to argue against Facebook when it says that some access
is better than no access at all. But one of the problems with Free
Basics, and indeed with Airtel Zero too, is that the consumer has no
choice in which websites he or she might want to access free of cost. If 
this decision is made only by Facebook, which might argue that it gives 
every developer an equal chance to be a part of its project as long as 
it meets a certain criteria, what we have is almost a paternalistic web. 
In such a situation, information, far from being free, is shackled by 
constraints imposed by the service provider.

*Laudable end, unethical means*

This is precisely one of the concerns raised by those arguing in favour
of Net neutrality, who, it is worth bearing in mind, aren’t resistant to 
the idea of a greater penetration of the Internet. Their apprehensions 
lie in companies resorting to what they believe is an unethical means to 
achieving, at least in theory, a laudable end. Accord\\ing to them, 
negating Net neutrality, in a bid to purportedly achieve greater access 
to the Internet in the immediate future, could prove profoundly 
injurious in the long run. Yes, Airtel Zero and Free Basics would bring 
to the less-privileged amongst us some access to the Internet, but the 
question is this: at what cost?

The worry is that if the programs that bring access to a part of the
Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could
eventually lead to these telecom companies abusing their dominant
positions. No doubt, as Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre
for Internet and Society, has argued, it might require a deeper analysis 
to argue convincingly that packages such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero 
require immediate invalidation in their present forms; significantly, 
the former does not demand payments from the applications while the 
latter is premised on such consideration. But, viewed holistically, the 
companies’ actions could potentially be characterised as a form of 
predatory pricing, where consumers might benefit in the short run, only 
for serious damage to ensue to competition in the long run.

It is, therefore, necessary that any debate on the issue must address
the tension between the two apparently conflicting goals — the
importance of maintaining a neutral Internet and the need to ensure a
greater access to the web across the country. Mr. Zuckerberg argues that 
these two values are not fundamentally opposed to each other, but can — 
and must — coexist. He is possibly correct at a theoretical level.

But the history of markets tells us that we have to be very careful in
allowing predatory practices, devised to achieve short-term goals, to go 
unbridled. As citizens, each of us has a fundamental right to freedom of 
speech and expression. If we were to get the balance between these two 
values wrong, if we were to allow the domination, by a few parties, of 
appliances that facilitate a free exchange of ideas, in a manner that 
impinges on the Internet’s neutrality, our most cherished civil 
liberties could well be put to grave danger.

(/Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate in the Madras High Court./)





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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Oct 10 11:08:42 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:38:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] Access at the cost of Net neutrality?
In-Reply-To: <5619220A.3030602@riseup.net>
References: <5615DF68.5010608@ITforChange.net> <5619220A.3030602@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <5FE9025E-6F9F-4FD2-A6EE-EE73EB8FDD12@hserus.net>

May I suggest that both of you strongly consider a course in networking first?

--srs

> On 10-Oct-2015, at 8:04 PM, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear friends,
> 
> this mail i received on the [governance] list. But, i think, it is a general question.
> 
> Based on the transport mechanism, and only of that, Net neutrality means the neutrality of transport. This is possible, because we never look inside the data. Who is the sender, who the receiver, what protocol is used.
> 
> But we have two different transport types. Asynchron and synchron. The mostly, what we use, is asynchron. We have no time restriction.
> 
> Synchron means, that we have some time restriction and we have to follow it. But we know, the synchron packets are mostly very small.
> 
> And in the synchron packet stream, we have only one with the highest priority: The emergency call of people. Never any packets from state institutions, military and paramilitary organisations, private organisation and so on. Only packets, to inform people that other people need our help.
> 
> This principles comes from the real processing of transport of digital data in packet form. It have nothing to do with, what people speak about, they sit in any office or meetings and speak about.
> 
> I do not understand, why Guru speak about "Inetnet.org" or similar things. It is not our theme. Our themes are, to organize a InterNet, that is really a InterNet. We always see only fog clouds. And i ask you: Why?
> 
> many greetings, willi
> Georgetown, Guyana (brit. Guiana)
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> Betreff: [governance] Access at the cost of Net neutrality?
> Datum: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:43:44 +0530
> Von: Guru <Guru at ITforChange.net>
> An: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, forum at justnetcoalition.org
> 
> Suhrith Parthasarathy
> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality/article7735242.ece
> 
> In the Net neutrality debate, there is a conflict between two core
> values: ease of access and neutrality. The ease of access promised by
> applications like Free Basics compromises neutrality and may later morph into a method of predatory pricingIf programs that bring access to a part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench
> themselves, it could eventually lead to telecom companies abusing their
> dominant positionsIn the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral
> Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to
> discriminate between different applications. Though they have not yet
> exploited this autonomy fully, they are certainly moving towards that.
> 
> Earlier this year, the social media giant, Facebook, formalised a
> partnership
> <http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/facebook-rings-reliance-communications-for-free-data-access/article6878396.ece> 
> with Reliance Communications that enabled the Indian company to provide
> access to over 30 different websites, without any charge on mobile data
> accruing to the ultimate user. The platform, originally known as
> “Internet.org,” has now been rebranded
> <http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/facebook-rebrands-internetorg-platform-as-free-basics-by-facebook/article7686680.ece> 
> as “Free Basics,” Facebook announced last month. Its fundamental ethos,
> though, remains unchanged. It allows Reliance’s subscribers to surf
> completely free of cost a bouquet of websites covered within the scheme, which includes, quite naturally, facebook.com <http://facebook.com>. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, views this supposed initiative as a philanthropic gesture, as part of a purported, larger aim to bring access to the Internet to those people who find the costs of using generally available mobile data prohibitive.
> 
> *Neutrality, an interpretive concept*
> 
> On the face of it, this supposed act of altruism appears to be
> commendable. But, there are many critics — some of whom have come
> together to launch a website “savetheinternet.in
> <http://savetheinternet.in>” with a view to defending Internet freedom — who argue that Free Basics violates what has come to be known as the
> principle of network (or Net) neutrality.
> 
> While it is clear to all of us that a notion of Net neutrality involves
> some regulation of the Internet, it is less clear what the term actually means. Like any phrase that involves either a moral or a legal
> obligation, Net neutrality is also an interpretive concept. People who
> employ the term to denote some sort of binding commitment, or at the
> least an aspirational norm, often tend to disagree over precisely how
> the idea ought to be accomplished. Tim Wu — an American lawyer and
> presently a professor at the Columbia University — who coined the term,
> views the notion of Net neutrality as signifying an Internet that does
> not favour any one application over another. In other words, the idea is to ensure that Internet service providers do not discriminate content by either charging a fee for acting as its carrier or by incorporating any technical qualifications.
> 
> In India, there is no law that expressly mandates the maintenance of a
> neutral Internet. This March, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
> (TRAI) released a draft consultation paper
> <http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/trai-seeks-views-to-regulate-netbased-calling-messaging-apps/article7039815.ece>seeking 
> the public’s views on whether the Internet needed regulation.
> Unfortunately, much of its attention was focussed on the supposedly
> pernicious impact
> <http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/policy-proposes-storage-of-all-messages-mandatory-for-90-days/article7674762.ece>of 
> applications such as WhatsApp and Viber. “In a multi-ethnic society
> there is a vital need,” wrote TRAI, “to ensure that the social
> equilibrium is not impacted adversely by communications that inflame
> passions, disturb law and order and lead to sectarian disputes.” The
> questions, therefore, in its view were these: should at least some
> Internet applications be amenable to a greater regulation, and should
> they compensate the telecom service providers in addition to the data
> charges that the consumers pay directly for the use of mobile Internet?
> 
> If the government eventually answers these questions in the affirmative, the consequences could be drastic. It could lead to a classification of Internet applications based on arbitrary grounds, by bringing some of them, whom the government views as harmful to society in some manner or another, within its regulatory net. Through such a move, the state, contrary to helping establish principles of Net neutrality as a rule of law, would be actively promoting an unequal Internet.
> 
> In any event, as things stand, in the absence of a specific law
> mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual /carte
> blanche/ to discriminate between different applications. Though these
> companies have not yet completely exploited this autonomy, they are
> certainly proceeding towards such an exercise. In April this year,
> Airtel announced Airtel Zero
> <http://www.thehindu.com/business/airtel-launches-platform-offering-free-access-to-certain-apps/article7077204.ece>, 
> an initiative that would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.
> 
> On the face of it, this programme appears opposed to Net neutrality. But what is even more alarming is that mobile Internet service providers could, in the future, plausibly also control the speeds at which different applications are delivered to consumers. For example, if WhatsApp were to subscribe to Airtel Zero by paying the fee demanded by the company, Airtel might accede to offering WhatsApp to consumers at a pace superior to that at which other applications are run. This kind of discrimination, as Nikhil Pahwa, one of the pioneers of the Save The Internet campaign, has argued, is prototypically opposed to Net neutrality. It tends to breed an unequal playing field, and, if allowed to subsist, it could create a deep division in the online world. Ultimately, we must view Net neutrality as a concept that stands for the values that we want to build as a society; it pertains to concerns about ensuring freedom of expression and about creating an open space for ideas where democracy can thrive. There is a tendency, though, to view those who support Net neutrality as representing a supercilious position. Such criticism is unquestionably blinkered, but it also highlights certain telling concerns.
> 
> Telecom companies that wish to discriminate between applications argue
> that in the absence of an Internet that has completely permeated all
> strata of society, an obligation to maintain neutrality is not only
> unreasonable on the companies, but also unfair on the consumer. After
> all, if nothing else, Airtel Zero and Free Basics bring, at the least,
> some portions of the Internet to people who otherwise have no means to
> access the web. What we have, therefore, at some level, is a clash of
> values: between access to the Internet (in a limited form) and the
> maintenance of neutrality in an atmosphere that is inherently unequal.
> This makes tailoring a solution to the problem a particularly arduous
> process.
> 
> The Internet, in its purest form, is a veritable fountain of
> information. At its core lies a commitment to both openness and a level
> playing field, where an ability to innovate is perennially maintained.
> It is difficult to argue against Facebook when it says that some access
> is better than no access at all. But one of the problems with Free
> Basics, and indeed with Airtel Zero too, is that the consumer has no
> choice in which websites he or she might want to access free of cost. If this decision is made only by Facebook, which might argue that it gives every developer an equal chance to be a part of its project as long as it meets a certain criteria, what we have is almost a paternalistic web. In such a situation, information, far from being free, is shackled by constraints imposed by the service provider.
> 
> *Laudable end, unethical means*
> 
> This is precisely one of the concerns raised by those arguing in favour
> of Net neutrality, who, it is worth bearing in mind, aren’t resistant to the idea of a greater penetration of the Internet. Their apprehensions lie in companies resorting to what they believe is an unethical means to achieving, at least in theory, a laudable end. Accord\\ing to them, negating Net neutrality, in a bid to purportedly achieve greater access to the Internet in the immediate future, could prove profoundly injurious in the long run. Yes, Airtel Zero and Free Basics would bring to the less-privileged amongst us some access to the Internet, but the question is this: at what cost?
> 
> The worry is that if the programs that bring access to a part of the
> Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could
> eventually lead to these telecom companies abusing their dominant
> positions. No doubt, as Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre
> for Internet and Society, has argued, it might require a deeper analysis to argue convincingly that packages such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero require immediate invalidation in their present forms; significantly, the former does not demand payments from the applications while the latter is premised on such consideration. But, viewed holistically, the companies’ actions could potentially be characterised as a form of predatory pricing, where consumers might benefit in the short run, only for serious damage to ensue to competition in the long run.
> 
> It is, therefore, necessary that any debate on the issue must address
> the tension between the two apparently conflicting goals — the
> importance of maintaining a neutral Internet and the need to ensure a
> greater access to the web across the country. Mr. Zuckerberg argues that these two values are not fundamentally opposed to each other, but can — and must — coexist. He is possibly correct at a theoretical level.
> 
> But the history of markets tells us that we have to be very careful in
> allowing predatory practices, devised to achieve short-term goals, to go unbridled. As citizens, each of us has a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. If we were to get the balance between these two values wrong, if we were to allow the domination, by a few parties, of appliances that facilitate a free exchange of ideas, in a manner that impinges on the Internet’s neutrality, our most cherished civil liberties could well be put to grave danger.
> 
> (/Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate in the Madras High Court./)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 saidsemail at gmail.com  Sat Oct 10 13:24:18 2015
From: saidsemail at gmail.com (Said Zazai)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:54:18 +0430
Subject: [governance] Access at the cost of Net neutrality?
In-Reply-To: <5FE9025E-6F9F-4FD2-A6EE-EE73EB8FDD12@hserus.net>
References: <5615DF68.5010608@ITforChange.net>
	<5619220A.3030602@riseup.net>
	<5FE9025E-6F9F-4FD2-A6EE-EE73EB8FDD12@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAE+ZEFJicrDZk-ObOhXsghOCzWo4A=ZScsMiObYM4fWnt3Nuxg@mail.gmail.com>

I love the initial threads that are created here but is it normal to
respond in the manner that I'm seeing over the past few days that I've been
a member here? "Take a course in networking"? Is that the response to
Guru's efforts to the topic?
On Oct 10, 2015 7:39 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> May I suggest that both of you strongly consider a course in networking
> first?
>
> --srs
>
> > On 10-Oct-2015, at 8:04 PM, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > this mail i received on the [governance] list. But, i think, it is a
> general question.
> >
> > Based on the transport mechanism, and only of that, Net neutrality means
> the neutrality of transport. This is possible, because we never look inside
> the data. Who is the sender, who the receiver, what protocol is used.
> >
> > But we have two different transport types. Asynchron and synchron. The
> mostly, what we use, is asynchron. We have no time restriction.
> >
> > Synchron means, that we have some time restriction and we have to follow
> it. But we know, the synchron packets are mostly very small.
> >
> > And in the synchron packet stream, we have only one with the highest
> priority: The emergency call of people. Never any packets from state
> institutions, military and paramilitary organisations, private organisation
> and so on. Only packets, to inform people that other people need our help.
> >
> > This principles comes from the real processing of transport of digital
> data in packet form. It have nothing to do with, what people speak about,
> they sit in any office or meetings and speak about.
> >
> > I do not understand, why Guru speak about "Inetnet.org" or similar
> things. It is not our theme. Our themes are, to organize a InterNet, that
> is really a InterNet. We always see only fog clouds. And i ask you: Why?
> >
> > many greetings, willi
> > Georgetown, Guyana (brit. Guiana)
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> > Betreff: [governance] Access at the cost of Net neutrality?
> > Datum: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:43:44 +0530
> > Von: Guru <Guru at ITforChange.net>
> > An: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> forum at justnetcoalition.org
> >
> > Suhrith Parthasarathy
> >
> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality/article7735242.ece
> >
> > In the Net neutrality debate, there is a conflict between two core
> > values: ease of access and neutrality. The ease of access promised by
> > applications like Free Basics compromises neutrality and may later morph
> into a method of predatory pricingIf programs that bring access to a part
> of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench
> > themselves, it could eventually lead to telecom companies abusing their
> > dominant positionsIn the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral
> > Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to
> > discriminate between different applications. Though they have not yet
> > exploited this autonomy fully, they are certainly moving towards that.
> >
> > Earlier this year, the social media giant, Facebook, formalised a
> > partnership
> > <
> http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/facebook-rings-reliance-communications-for-free-data-access/article6878396.ece
> >
> > with Reliance Communications that enabled the Indian company to provide
> > access to over 30 different websites, without any charge on mobile data
> > accruing to the ultimate user. The platform, originally known as
> > “Internet.org,” has now been rebranded
> > <
> http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/facebook-rebrands-internetorg-platform-as-free-basics-by-facebook/article7686680.ece
> >
> > as “Free Basics,” Facebook announced last month. Its fundamental ethos,
> > though, remains unchanged. It allows Reliance’s subscribers to surf
> > completely free of cost a bouquet of websites covered within the scheme,
> which includes, quite naturally, facebook.com <http://facebook.com>. Mark
> Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, views this supposed initiative as a
> philanthropic gesture, as part of a purported, larger aim to bring access
> to the Internet to those people who find the costs of using generally
> available mobile data prohibitive.
> >
> > *Neutrality, an interpretive concept*
> >
> > On the face of it, this supposed act of altruism appears to be
> > commendable. But, there are many critics — some of whom have come
> > together to launch a website “savetheinternet.in
> > <http://savetheinternet.in>” with a view to defending Internet freedom
> — who argue that Free Basics violates what has come to be known as the
> > principle of network (or Net) neutrality.
> >
> > While it is clear to all of us that a notion of Net neutrality involves
> > some regulation of the Internet, it is less clear what the term actually
> means. Like any phrase that involves either a moral or a legal
> > obligation, Net neutrality is also an interpretive concept. People who
> > employ the term to denote some sort of binding commitment, or at the
> > least an aspirational norm, often tend to disagree over precisely how
> > the idea ought to be accomplished. Tim Wu — an American lawyer and
> > presently a professor at the Columbia University — who coined the term,
> > views the notion of Net neutrality as signifying an Internet that does
> > not favour any one application over another. In other words, the idea is
> to ensure that Internet service providers do not discriminate content by
> either charging a fee for acting as its carrier or by incorporating any
> technical qualifications.
> >
> > In India, there is no law that expressly mandates the maintenance of a
> > neutral Internet. This March, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
> > (TRAI) released a draft consultation paper
> > <
> http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/trai-seeks-views-to-regulate-netbased-calling-messaging-apps/article7039815.ece
> >seeking
> > the public’s views on whether the Internet needed regulation.
> > Unfortunately, much of its attention was focussed on the supposedly
> > pernicious impact
> > <
> http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/policy-proposes-storage-of-all-messages-mandatory-for-90-days/article7674762.ece
> >of
> > applications such as WhatsApp and Viber. “In a multi-ethnic society
> > there is a vital need,” wrote TRAI, “to ensure that the social
> > equilibrium is not impacted adversely by communications that inflame
> > passions, disturb law and order and lead to sectarian disputes.” The
> > questions, therefore, in its view were these: should at least some
> > Internet applications be amenable to a greater regulation, and should
> > they compensate the telecom service providers in addition to the data
> > charges that the consumers pay directly for the use of mobile Internet?
> >
> > If the government eventually answers these questions in the affirmative,
> the consequences could be drastic. It could lead to a classification of
> Internet applications based on arbitrary grounds, by bringing some of them,
> whom the government views as harmful to society in some manner or another,
> within its regulatory net. Through such a move, the state, contrary to
> helping establish principles of Net neutrality as a rule of law, would be
> actively promoting an unequal Internet.
> >
> > In any event, as things stand, in the absence of a specific law
> > mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual /carte
> > blanche/ to discriminate between different applications. Though these
> > companies have not yet completely exploited this autonomy, they are
> > certainly proceeding towards such an exercise. In April this year,
> > Airtel announced Airtel Zero
> > <
> http://www.thehindu.com/business/airtel-launches-platform-offering-free-access-to-certain-apps/article7077204.ece
> >,
> > an initiative that would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel
> in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.
> >
> > On the face of it, this programme appears opposed to Net neutrality. But
> what is even more alarming is that mobile Internet service providers could,
> in the future, plausibly also control the speeds at which different
> applications are delivered to consumers. For example, if WhatsApp were to
> subscribe to Airtel Zero by paying the fee demanded by the company, Airtel
> might accede to offering WhatsApp to consumers at a pace superior to that
> at which other applications are run. This kind of discrimination, as Nikhil
> Pahwa, one of the pioneers of the Save The Internet campaign, has argued,
> is prototypically opposed to Net neutrality. It tends to breed an unequal
> playing field, and, if allowed to subsist, it could create a deep division
> in the online world. Ultimately, we must view Net neutrality as a concept
> that stands for the values that we want to build as a society; it pertains
> to concerns about ensuring freedom of expression and about creating an open
> space for ideas where democracy can thrive. There is a tendency, though, to
> view those who support Net neutrality as representing a supercilious
> position. Such criticism is unquestionably blinkered, but it also
> highlights certain telling concerns.
> >
> > Telecom companies that wish to discriminate between applications argue
> > that in the absence of an Internet that has completely permeated all
> > strata of society, an obligation to maintain neutrality is not only
> > unreasonable on the companies, but also unfair on the consumer. After
> > all, if nothing else, Airtel Zero and Free Basics bring, at the least,
> > some portions of the Internet to people who otherwise have no means to
> > access the web. What we have, therefore, at some level, is a clash of
> > values: between access to the Internet (in a limited form) and the
> > maintenance of neutrality in an atmosphere that is inherently unequal.
> > This makes tailoring a solution to the problem a particularly arduous
> > process.
> >
> > The Internet, in its purest form, is a veritable fountain of
> > information. At its core lies a commitment to both openness and a level
> > playing field, where an ability to innovate is perennially maintained.
> > It is difficult to argue against Facebook when it says that some access
> > is better than no access at all. But one of the problems with Free
> > Basics, and indeed with Airtel Zero too, is that the consumer has no
> > choice in which websites he or she might want to access free of cost. If
> this decision is made only by Facebook, which might argue that it gives
> every developer an equal chance to be a part of its project as long as it
> meets a certain criteria, what we have is almost a paternalistic web. In
> such a situation, information, far from being free, is shackled by
> constraints imposed by the service provider.
> >
> > *Laudable end, unethical means*
> >
> > This is precisely one of the concerns raised by those arguing in favour
> > of Net neutrality, who, it is worth bearing in mind, aren’t resistant to
> the idea of a greater penetration of the Internet. Their apprehensions lie
> in companies resorting to what they believe is an unethical means to
> achieving, at least in theory, a laudable end. Accord\\ing to them,
> negating Net neutrality, in a bid to purportedly achieve greater access to
> the Internet in the immediate future, could prove profoundly injurious in
> the long run. Yes, Airtel Zero and Free Basics would bring to the
> less-privileged amongst us some access to the Internet, but the question is
> this: at what cost?
> >
> > The worry is that if the programs that bring access to a part of the
> > Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could
> > eventually lead to these telecom companies abusing their dominant
> > positions. No doubt, as Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre
> > for Internet and Society, has argued, it might require a deeper analysis
> to argue convincingly that packages such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero
> require immediate invalidation in their present forms; significantly, the
> former does not demand payments from the applications while the latter is
> premised on such consideration. But, viewed holistically, the companies’
> actions could potentially be characterised as a form of predatory pricing,
> where consumers might benefit in the short run, only for serious damage to
> ensue to competition in the long run.
> >
> > It is, therefore, necessary that any debate on the issue must address
> > the tension between the two apparently conflicting goals — the
> > importance of maintaining a neutral Internet and the need to ensure a
> > greater access to the web across the country. Mr. Zuckerberg argues that
> these two values are not fundamentally opposed to each other, but can — and
> must — coexist. He is possibly correct at a theoretical level.
> >
> > But the history of markets tells us that we have to be very careful in
> > allowing predatory practices, devised to achieve short-term goals, to go
> unbridled. As citizens, each of us has a fundamental right to freedom of
> speech and expression. If we were to get the balance between these two
> values wrong, if we were to allow the domination, by a few parties, of
> appliances that facilitate a free exchange of ideas, in a manner that
> impinges on the Internet’s neutrality, our most cherished civil liberties
> could well be put to grave danger.
> >
> > (/Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate in the Madras High Court./)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To 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/20151010/66ff5184/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Oct 11 05:28:36 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:28:36 +1100
Subject: [governance] #gamergate trolling attack going on nowagainst a
 feminist tech movement
Message-ID: <C0B731EB99CB4A4D8D54CD435AFEECC1@Toshiba>

I am posting this separately to a few lists, so apologies if you are already 
aware of this.

For those who have not caught up on this weekend's vicious attack on APC and 
Take Back the Tech.

I'd particularly encourage you to read the reddit link, and see how a 
distorted campaign has been mounted in the name of freedom of speech on such 
a low factual base. What's more, a set of people who were planning to 
discuss this subject - and who are already victims of cyber-bullying - have 
been aggressively cyber-bullied and exposed to some very poor taste 
material.

On Twitter, the hashtag mostly under attack is #takebackthetech - a long 
standing APC campaign. This hashtag and #imagineafeministinternet hVE 
virtually been taken over by #gamergate followers.

I don't know how we can counter such attacks; nor do i know how you get a 
factual basis to these discussions when those mounting the attack want a 
distorted situation.

This is quite a worrying development that now has spread from APC to an 
attack where IGF and UN are being accused of opposing freedom of speech.

I would love to know a good way to address this. But in the meantime, I 
think people should be aware of this.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ian Peter
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 6:57 PM
To: Michael Gurstein ; 'Internet governance related discussions' ; 
ciresearchers at vcn.bc.ca
Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] : [Air-L] #gamergate trolling attack going on 
nowagainst a feminist tech movement

So this attack is still ongoing, and being done in the name of "freedom from
censorship". And the devil has become the IGF and the UN!

It's astonishing how well organised it is on a distorted information
base -see the link below.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3oa04u/goal_op_take_back_the_truth_phase_ii_the_apc_has/

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jac sm Kee
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 11:41 PM
To: Michael Gurstein ; 'Internet governance related discussions' ;
ciresearchers at vcn.bc.ca
Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] : [Air-L] #gamergate trolling attack going on now
against a feminist tech movement

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

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the support. I think there are a couple of things that can
be done:

a) Reposting the statement in your sites to demonstrate support to the
work, and condemning the attacks
b) Also post something that explains the open, transparent,
multistakeholder and participatory nature of IGF, and related work
including intersessionals. The trolls seem to be really confused about
what IGF is about, and see this as an "evil UN scheme" to control the
internet. Which is quite funny. They celebrate it as a victory to be
able to join a BPF meeting and access archives of documented
discussion. Very strange, but maybe some information and clarification
from the IGF community can help.

If you have more ideas, happy to hear them.

Best,
jac




- ---------------------------------
Jac sm Kee
Manager, Women's Rights Programme
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org
Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe

On 10/10/2015 05:46, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Thanks for this below Anriette/Jac...
>
> I came across the original message on a list for "Internet
> researchers" where it is being discussed along with associated
> attacks under the overall rubric of #gamergate referring to a quite
> serious troll attack focusing on an online discussion concerned
> with the lack of gender responsive actions and outputs among gamers
> and game developers.
>
> Apart from actually participating in the troll attack (difficult if
> one has no real idea of what is going on) is there anything useful
> that sympathetic observers can do at this point.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Forum
> [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of Anriette
> Esterhuysen Sent: October 9, 2015 1:39 PM To: Internet governance
> related discussions <forum at justnetcoalition.org>;
> ciresearchers at vcn.bc.ca; Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org> Subject: Re:
> [JNC - Forum] ?spam FW: [Air-L] #gamergate trolling attack going on
> now against a feminist tech movement
>
> Dear JNC and CI researchers
>
> Aside from this attack being cited as an interesting subject for
> research, you might also want to take action.
>
> We would also appreciate support.  Hashtag #takebackthetech
>
> Please find below a statement from APC on the attack.
>
> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC
>
> Take Action for #TakeBackTheTech and ImagineAFeministInternet
>
> Today, Friday the 9th of October 2015, misoynists, trolls and a
> variety of people who associate with the #Gamergate hashtag decided
> to occupy and corrupt the #TakeBackTheTech and
> #ImagineAFeministInternet hashtags by posting thousands of
> anti-feminist and misogynistic tweets and memes. This attack is the
> response to a tweet chat organised by the Internet Governance
> Forum, Best Practice Forum on Countering Online Violence and Abuse,
> to discuss the impact of such violence. The volunteer who was
> organising the tweet chat also received an email in her personal
> inbox declaring the launch of the attack to “destroy” the
> campaign.This online attack against feminist activism online is
> deliberate, planned, and coordinated and it’s only one example of
> the attack that feminists face online.
>
> Take Back the Tech! is a collaborative campaign to reclaim
> technology to prevent violence against women. It started in 2006
> and works with local partners to run campaigns online and offline
> to raise awareness of technology-related violence against women and
> girls, promote digital safety and amplify women’s voices online.As
> a hashtag, #TakeBackTheTech has been used by activists to draw
> attention to issues of online violence against women, and to
> organise around periods like ‘Sixteen Days of Activism against
> Gender Based Violence’. #ImagineAFeministInternet first came into
> use in 2013 when the Association for Progressive Communications
> convened a gathering of over 50 activists in Malaysia to discuss
> what a Feminist Internet would look like - open, digitally secure,
> safer for feminist activists. Increasingly
> #ImagineAFeministInternet has become more popular as digitally
> connected feminists have come together to conceptualise what a
> safe, activist online space would look like.
>
> Today’s cyber attack by the trolls emphasise that more than ever
> feminists and activists need to respond swiftly to online violence.
> Our organisations, movements and allies need to support the digital
> security of women’s rights defenders online. More than ever we need
> to #TakeBackTheTech and #ImagineAFeministInternet. As individual
> activists and members of various social justice activists we call
> on you to do the following:
>
> Report abusive accounts to Twitter If you feel so inclined, create
> alternative accounts to push back against the trolls Reclaim the
> #TakeBackTheTech and #ImagineAFeministInternet hashtags Support the
> process of documenting instances of online violence against women
> Highlight the importance of feminism, technology and women's rights
> online Share knowledge of how to end online violence against women
> Support #TakeBackTheTech and our efforts to
> #ImagineAFeministInternet
>
> Enquiries
>
> Jac Sm Kee Women's Rights Programme Manager, Association for
> Progressive Communications Email: jac at apcwomen.org
>
> On 09/10/2015 22:12, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> Interesting roiling in the twittersphere around APC led tech and
>>  feminism campaign.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Air-L
>> [mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Zara
>> Rahman Sent: October 9, 2015 8:44 AM To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
>> Subject: [Air-L] #gamergate trolling attack going on now against
>> a feminist tech movement
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I thought this might be of interest for those of you studying
>> trolling: there is a (seemingly well-coordinated) Gamergate going
>> on right now against those using the hashtag #takebackthetech and
>> (to a lesser extent) #imagineafeministinternet.
>>
>> Both of these hashtags started with the feminist organisation
>> APC, and they were/are planning an online twitter discussion
>> tonight on the impact of onlnie violence against women - but
>> Gamergate trolls seem to have picked up on it in advance.
>>
>> The community is organising at the moment on how to respond, but
>> if you're interested in following/studying/archiving the attack -
>> head to #takebackthetech
>> <https://twitter.com/hashtag/TakeBackTheTech?src=hash>.
>>
>> For reference: https://www.takebackthetech.net/
>> https://www.apc.org/en/about/programmes/womens-networking-support-pro
g
>>
>>
ramme-
>> apc-wnsp
>>
>> Thanks - if you end up working on this topic further, please let
>> me know! And, perhaps this goes without saying but please don't
>> @/tag me or others in your responses if you choose to respond on
>> Twitter. The organisers of the twitter chat have already received
>> abusive twitter and email messages.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Zara
>>
>> -- Zara Rahman Fellow at Centre for Internet and Human Rights
>> http://zararah.net | Twitter: @zararah
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ The
>> Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the
>> Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe,
>> change options or unsubscribe at:
>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>>
>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> http://www.aoir.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Forum mailing
>> list Forum at justnetcoalition.org
>> http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum
>>
>
> -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen
> Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications
> anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc
> _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list
> Forum at justnetcoalition.org
> http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWGQeAAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmIiEH/2LtWRlfGWIaCZlsITX36LCD
AZYAKHwiyHjFv0NAY3AWvq9W8+4md33gbpbes1ITYfgfS0yU4qkhekhNotFwFQo/
caIpOS1F7es7DiC8s/bPbOo7dr1f6NDRxoLPBoYcHHqmpBgzIuTLxfd5fHequEAe
+91HqeP6W7UdRlfc0RAYCqxCBDj1v6d6oWqZlJ2Un7Rn4UoJRCkzRVuOfAJx8bAm
gvRHEjYvTWAaRz10OQx4SyLlYcEomBY0xZB4Bwz6QUFOnXYP/ncmdNUsM89YVeWH
i3mV7O/nU6DPXy6naQvJze4FE9wBDRvY4QxZHsnlnjtK62uSZeHn58I7e/PRtkI=
=rG7X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum at justnetcoalition.org
http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum

_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum at justnetcoalition.org
http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sun Oct 11 08:58:52 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 08:58:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7GHVJB_-Y-_VZztDxRURaQRLfckO2GYCHALGU4LowSwQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Suresh and Everyone,
I've been wondering about Suresh's subject line. Of course it's the truth.
A lot of us do disagree, which is surely the raison d'etre for the IGC.
I have an appeal to make.
Each person writing to this list - please, before you press send, read what
you have written and ask yourself whether, if you received such a ,message,
you would be hurt or offended. If the answer is yes then please try to edit
what you have written for the list. If your intention was to hurt and
offend then send that message directly to its intended recipient.
And when you read the messages - try not to assume that hurt and offense
were the writer's intention. Some years ago I told my husband not to be
"daft" in circumstances in which for me it was a "hug word" - a word to
comfort and give support. He didn't speak to me for what felt like 3
months. The word has different connotations in his culture. Anger about
something else is good at blinding one to everything.
This list is supposed to be about discussing issues, not providing a space
for the clash of personalities.
Suresh suggests that "Engaging in debate would be useful". I wholeheartedly
agree with him. And to be really useful the debate must be as inclusive as
possible. Civil society is not only "those people who share my
perspective". Civil society is all of us. To be effective it needs to be
united and therefore all of those very difficult issues about which we may
hold very contradictory views need to be patiently discussed and negotiated
until we can reach some sort of "civil society" position.
It is very much in the interest of some parties in this global debate that
civil society should be divided and ruled.
We have the power to stop this, but it will need self-discipline and
patience.
Deirdre

On 5 October 2015 at 22:46, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
wrote:

> But it's interesting to see an articulate voice advocate "the other side"
> and call out some of the commentary on this issue as  ill informed and
> politically aimed rhetoric
>
> Engaging in debate would be useful so the author of this piece can get a
> more informed : balanced and less politically driven perspective of
> neutrality
>
>
> http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html
>
> --srs
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“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/20151011/1edeae23/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 11 10:33:43 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:33:43 +0200
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7GHVJB_-Y-_VZztDxRURaQRLfckO2GYCHALGU4LowSwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN7GHVJB_-Y-_VZztDxRURaQRLfckO2GYCHALGU4LowSwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E70D2A01-6664-45B7-8760-C99F1A207858@consensus.pro>

Dear Deirdre, thank you for taking the time to send such a wise and constructive post. I for one was very glad to read it.

regards, Nick

> On 11 Oct 2015, at 14:58, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Suresh and Everyone,
> I've been wondering about Suresh's subject line. Of course it's the truth. A lot of us do disagree, which is surely the raison d'etre for the IGC.
> I have an appeal to make.
> Each person writing to this list - please, before you press send, read what you have written and ask yourself whether, if you received such a ,message, you would be hurt or offended. If the answer is yes then please try to edit what you have written for the list. If your intention was to hurt and offend then send that message directly to its intended recipient.
> And when you read the messages - try not to assume that hurt and offense were the writer's intention. Some years ago I told my husband not to be "daft" in circumstances in which for me it was a "hug word" - a word to comfort and give support. He didn't speak to me for what felt like 3 months. The word has different connotations in his culture. Anger about something else is good at blinding one to everything.
> This list is supposed to be about discussing issues, not providing a space for the clash of personalities.
> Suresh suggests that "Engaging in debate would be useful". I wholeheartedly agree with him. And to be really useful the debate must be as inclusive as possible. Civil society is not only "those people who share my perspective". Civil society is all of us. To be effective it needs to be united and therefore all of those very difficult issues about which we may hold very contradictory views need to be patiently discussed and negotiated until we can reach some sort of "civil society" position.
> It is very much in the interest of some parties in this global debate that civil society should be divided and ruled.
> We have the power to stop this, but it will need self-discipline and patience.
> Deirdre
> 
> On 5 October 2015 at 22:46, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
> But it's interesting to see an articulate voice advocate "the other side" and call out some of the commentary on this issue as  ill informed and politically aimed rhetoric
> 
> Engaging in debate would be useful so the author of this piece can get a more informed : balanced and less politically driven perspective of neutrality
> 
> http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html <http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html>
> 
> --srs
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> “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/20151011/6ab3a47c/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/20151011/6ab3a47c/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 udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng  Sun Oct 11 10:42:04 2015
From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:42:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <E70D2A01-6664-45B7-8760-C99F1A207858@consensus.pro>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net>
	<CAMz5XN7GHVJB_-Y-_VZztDxRURaQRLfckO2GYCHALGU4LowSwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E70D2A01-6664-45B7-8760-C99F1A207858@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAOz-jXS-BCm7dOqCG-SJN25TO5CuwCuFOCviFz=NXFsEXrYotw@mail.gmail.com>

Deirdre made an excellent observation. I add that a reply addressed to a
person is personal. The writer of the reply should have used "Reply to
Sender", NOT "Reply to All".

Personal replies help fellows get better informed to continue more
meaningfully in discussions. When such replies are made public, we stand
the risks of deviating from the topic, overcrowding the discussion space,
discouraging participation, wasting precious time, and breeding acrimony.
There's no way the person replying to a particular comment is sure that we
all hold his/her view, just as it's unlikely that we all would think that
the comment is useless or ill-informed.

Let's have and respect a grande rule: "Please encourage participation,
time saving and productive discussions on this list by not making hurting,
insulting or rude remarks."

CPU

--------------------------------------
Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ, Ph.D.
Management Information System, ICT and Innovation
University of Nigeria
Alternate e-mail-1: udochukwu.njoku at ieee.org
Alternate e-mail-2: njoku.prince at gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prince.udochukwunjoku
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisprinceudochukwunjoku
Twitter: @DrCPUNjoku
Tel.: +234 8077227038, 8063450674, 8108218762
On Oct 11, 2015 3:34 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> Dear Deirdre, thank you for taking the time to send such a wise and
> constructive post. I for one was very glad to read it.
>
> regards, Nick
>
> On 11 Oct 2015, at 14:58, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Suresh and Everyone,
> I've been wondering about Suresh's subject line. Of course it's the truth.
> A lot of us do disagree, which is surely the raison d'etre for the IGC.
> I have an appeal to make.
> Each person writing to this list - please, before you press send, read
> what you have written and ask yourself whether, if you received such a
> ,message, you would be hurt or offended. If the answer is yes then please
> try to edit what you have written for the list. If your intention was to
> hurt and offend then send that message directly to its intended recipient.
> And when you read the messages - try not to assume that hurt and offense
> were the writer's intention. Some years ago I told my husband not to be
> "daft" in circumstances in which for me it was a "hug word" - a word to
> comfort and give support. He didn't speak to me for what felt like 3
> months. The word has different connotations in his culture. Anger about
> something else is good at blinding one to everything.
> This list is supposed to be about discussing issues, not providing a space
> for the clash of personalities.
> Suresh suggests that "Engaging in debate would be useful". I
> wholeheartedly agree with him. And to be really useful the debate must be
> as inclusive as possible. Civil society is not only "those people who share
> my perspective". Civil society is all of us. To be effective it needs to be
> united and therefore all of those very difficult issues about which we may
> hold very contradictory views need to be patiently discussed and negotiated
> until we can reach some sort of "civil society" position.
> It is very much in the interest of some parties in this global debate that
> civil society should be divided and ruled.
> We have the power to stop this, but it will need self-discipline and
> patience.
> Deirdre
>
> On 5 October 2015 at 22:46, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> But it's interesting to see an articulate voice advocate "the other side"
>> and call out some of the commentary on this issue as  ill informed and
>> politically aimed rhetoric
>>
>> Engaging in debate would be useful so the author of this piece can get a
>> more informed : balanced and less politically driven perspective of
>> neutrality
>>
>>
>> http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html
>>
>> --srs
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151011/8a7bfade/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Oct 11 10:49:03 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:19:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
In-Reply-To: <E70D2A01-6664-45B7-8760-C99F1A207858@consensus.pro>
References: <3E1F1513-D1C1-4AE3-868F-FF990E1FCF8B@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN7GHVJB_-Y-_VZztDxRURaQRLfckO2GYCHALGU4LowSwQ@mail.gmail.com> <E70D2A01-6664-45B7-8760-C99F1A207858@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <6937010B-B48D-4F38-B1E2-1B4A82E9A69B@hserus.net>

The attempts to produce a civil society position have of course led to contrarian positions by other sections of civil society - which is excellent.  

What happens next is unfortunately completely expected and completely not ideal - the rival position holders turn around and question the legitimacy of the positions and even of the process that was used to reach those positions.

In an atmosphere of mistrust positions get more and more entrenched and hardline and consensus is thrown into the trash though most if not all the sides in the debate claim to have achieved it

--srs

> On 11-Oct-2015, at 8:03 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> 
> Dear Deirdre, thank you for taking the time to send such a wise and constructive post. I for one was very glad to read it.
> 
> regards, Nick
> 
>> On 11 Oct 2015, at 14:58, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Suresh and Everyone,
>> I've been wondering about Suresh's subject line. Of course it's the truth. A lot of us do disagree, which is surely the raison d'etre for the IGC.
>> I have an appeal to make.
>> Each person writing to this list - please, before you press send, read what you have written and ask yourself whether, if you received such a ,message, you would be hurt or offended. If the answer is yes then please try to edit what you have written for the list. If your intention was to hurt and offend then send that message directly to its intended recipient.
>> And when you read the messages - try not to assume that hurt and offense were the writer's intention. Some years ago I told my husband not to be "daft" in circumstances in which for me it was a "hug word" - a word to comfort and give support. He didn't speak to me for what felt like 3 months. The word has different connotations in his culture. Anger about something else is good at blinding one to everything.
>> This list is supposed to be about discussing issues, not providing a space for the clash of personalities.
>> Suresh suggests that "Engaging in debate would be useful". I wholeheartedly agree with him. And to be really useful the debate must be as inclusive as possible. Civil society is not only "those people who share my perspective". Civil society is all of us. To be effective it needs to be united and therefore all of those very difficult issues about which we may hold very contradictory views need to be patiently discussed and negotiated until we can reach some sort of "civil society" position.
>> It is very much in the interest of some parties in this global debate that civil society should be divided and ruled.
>> We have the power to stop this, but it will need self-discipline and patience.
>> Deirdre
>>  
>>> On 5 October 2015 at 22:46, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>> But it's interesting to see an articulate voice advocate "the other side" and call out some of the commentary on this issue as  ill informed and politically aimed rhetoric 
>>> 
>>> Engaging in debate would be useful so the author of this piece can get a more informed : balanced and less politically driven perspective of neutrality
>>> 
>>> http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html
>>> 
>>> --srs
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> “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/20151011/6d839143/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 12 21:33:42 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:33:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] #gamergate trolling attack going on nowagainst a
 feminist tech movement
In-Reply-To: <C0B731EB99CB4A4D8D54CD435AFEECC1@Toshiba>
References: <C0B731EB99CB4A4D8D54CD435AFEECC1@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN73ciaZM8MFv5fLkez8wNgfa-dsT+3uF+OJd5HH49CNiQ@mail.gmail.com>

Following Ian yesterday - here's the link to the APC statement about the
situation:
https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/facts-takebackthetech

=========================
Facts on #TakeBacktheTech
=========================

12 October 2015: Since Friday, 9 October 2015, a mounting online
attack has been launched against the Twitter hashtag #TakeBacktheTech
and associated initiatives.

Take Back the Tech! was launched in 2006 by a group of young women in
Southeast Asia in response to an increasing recognition that emerging
ICT developments like mobile phones and geolocation software were used
to extend the violence that women faced in physical spaces through SMS
harassment and cyber stalking by abusive partners. See here for full
research on case studies in seven countries.

Echoing the Take Back the Night campaigns by women’s movements in
different parts of the world, the campaign saw the importance of
reclaiming the transformative potential of digital spaces for the
exercise of women’s human rights, including the right to freedom of
expression, public participation and safety. The campaign was
initiated by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Women’s Rights Programme, and has been taken up, adapted and owned by
individuals, organisations and collectives in places such as
Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada,
Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Germany, India, Kenya,
Macedonia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, South
Africa, Uganda, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay. The
campaign is linked to the longstanding 16 Days of Activism Against
Gender-based Violence global campaign.

Take Back the Tech and APC have never supported censorship; to the
contrary, we have explicitly explored means of addressing online hate
speech in general, and misogynist content in particular, without
resorting to censorship. Claims to this effect in the recent efforts
to hijack the #takebackthetech hashtag are simply not accurate. APC’s
Internet Rights Charter, a document which interprets how fundamental
human rights apply on the internet, was released in 2001.

Claims that APC supports doxing (defined in Wikipedia as searching for
and publishing private or identifying information about a particular
individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent) are also
not accurate. This claim was made in response to a reference in an
educational comic available on the Take Back the Tech! site to the
case of Mary Beard who was offered, via a public tweet, contact
details of the mother of a tweeter who had been attacking her online.
She did not seek it out nor did she use it. Instead she communicated
directly with the person who had been posting the abusive tweets and
in a rare instance, was able to resolve the situation
(http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/27/mary-beard-befriends-twitt
er-trolls-online-abuse)

APC collaborates closely with the United Nations. APC and Take Back
the Tech did not author the ITU Broadband Commission report “Cyber
Violence against Women and Girls: A world-wide wake-up call”. We agree
with most of the content of this report, but there are areas of
analysis and recommendations in the report that we do not support in
full. To learn more about what APC’s position is with regard to online
free expression and responding to harmful content refer to:
http://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/pulling-back-veil-free-speech.

APC and Take Back the Tech are stakeholders of the Internet Governance
Forum (IGF) Best Practice Forum to share learning and experiences on
how to respond to online abuse and violence against women. The IGF is
a multistakeholder platform that facilitates policy dialogue on key
and emerging issues related to internet policy and governance. As with
all other IGF processes, the work of this Best Practice Forum has been
inclusive and transparent. It is unfortunate that this transparency
has been used to misrepresent the goals of this process
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK7nnL11dIE)
If anyone wants to access accurate information about the IGF and this
Best Practice Forum, refer to:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/4-practices-to-count
ering-abuse-against-women-online#about
Similarly, if anyone wants to make constructive contributions to the
Best Practice Forum’s work, please comment on Draft II, currently
published for public input:
http://review.intgovforum.org/igf-2015/best-practice-forums/draft-ii-bpf
- -on-practices-to-counter-online-violence-against-women-and-girls/


The attack against APC and Take Back the Tech and efforts to hijack
the #takebackthetech hashtag, which has involved people who
self-associate with #Gamergate posting threats targeting members of
our community and images that depict women being subjected to physical
and sexual violence, illustrate how women’s and girls’ voices are
silenced on social networking platforms by violent and sexist expression
.

The scale of this attack thus far has involved more than 20,000 tweets
and memes containing anti-feminist, racist, violent and abusive
content, which has also been targeted at those who expressed support
for #TakeBacktheTech. Emails that included threatening content have
also been sent to individuals associated with organising the the
initial Twitter conversation that launched the attack. It bears
repeating that the attacks are coordinated, planned and organised, and
this demonstrates the importance of continuing, collaborative efforts
to address this issue.

Thanks to those who have expressed their support.

To find out more about online violence against women:
http://www.genderit.org/sites/default/upload/end_violence_malhotra_dig.p
df

For more information contact:

Jac Sm Kee
Women’s Rights Programme Manager, Association for Progressive
Communications
Email: jac at apcwomen.org

Deirdre


On 11 October 2015 at 05:28, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> I am posting this separately to a few lists, so apologies if you are
> already aware of this.
>
> For those who have not caught up on this weekend's vicious attack on APC
> and Take Back the Tech.
>
> I'd particularly encourage you to read the reddit link, and see how a
> distorted campaign has been mounted in the name of freedom of speech on
> such a low factual base. What's more, a set of people who were planning to
> discuss this subject - and who are already victims of cyber-bullying - have
> been aggressively cyber-bullied and exposed to some very poor taste
> material.
>
> On Twitter, the hashtag mostly under attack is #takebackthetech - a long
> standing APC campaign. This hashtag and #imagineafeministinternet hVE
> virtually been taken over by #gamergate followers.
>
> I don't know how we can counter such attacks; nor do i know how you get a
> factual basis to these discussions when those mounting the attack want a
> distorted situation.
>
> This is quite a worrying development that now has spread from APC to an
> attack where IGF and UN are being accused of opposing freedom of speech.
>
> I would love to know a good way to address this. But in the meantime, I
> think people should be aware of this.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 6:57 PM
> To: Michael Gurstein ; 'Internet governance related discussions' ;
> ciresearchers at vcn.bc.ca
> Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] : [Air-L] #gamergate trolling attack going on
> nowagainst a feminist tech movement
>
> So this attack is still ongoing, and being done in the name of "freedom
> from
> censorship". And the devil has become the IGF and the UN!
>
> It's astonishing how well organised it is on a distorted information
> base -see the link below.
>
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3oa04u/goal_op_take_back_the_truth_phase_ii_the_apc_has/
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jac sm Kee
> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 11:41 PM
> To: Michael Gurstein ; 'Internet governance related discussions' ;
> ciresearchers at vcn.bc.ca
> Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] : [Air-L] #gamergate trolling attack going on
> now
> against a feminist tech movement
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for the support. I think there are a couple of things that can
> be done:
>
> a) Reposting the statement in your sites to demonstrate support to the
> work, and condemning the attacks
> b) Also post something that explains the open, transparent,
> multistakeholder and participatory nature of IGF, and related work
> including intersessionals. The trolls seem to be really confused about
> what IGF is about, and see this as an "evil UN scheme" to control the
> internet. Which is quite funny. They celebrate it as a victory to be
> able to join a BPF meeting and access archives of documented
> discussion. Very strange, but maybe some information and clarification
> from the IGF community can help.
>
> If you have more ideas, happy to hear them.
>
> Best,
> jac
>
>
>
>
> - ---------------------------------
> Jac sm Kee
> Manager, Women's Rights Programme
> Association for Progressive Communications
> www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org
> Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe
>
> On 10/10/2015 05:46, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>> Thanks for this below Anriette/Jac...
>>
>> I came across the original message on a list for "Internet
>> researchers" where it is being discussed along with associated
>> attacks under the overall rubric of #gamergate referring to a quite
>> serious troll attack focusing on an online discussion concerned
>> with the lack of gender responsive actions and outputs among gamers
>> and game developers.
>>
>> Apart from actually participating in the troll attack (difficult if
>> one has no real idea of what is going on) is there anything useful
>> that sympathetic observers can do at this point.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Forum
>> [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of Anriette
>> Esterhuysen Sent: October 9, 2015 1:39 PM To: Internet governance
>> related discussions <forum at justnetcoalition.org>;
>> ciresearchers at vcn.bc.ca; Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org> Subject: Re:
>> [JNC - Forum] ?spam FW: [Air-L] #gamergate trolling attack going on
>> now against a feminist tech movement
>>
>> Dear JNC and CI researchers
>>
>> Aside from this attack being cited as an interesting subject for
>> research, you might also want to take action.
>>
>> We would also appreciate support.  Hashtag #takebackthetech
>>
>> Please find below a statement from APC on the attack.
>>
>> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC
>>
>> Take Action for #TakeBackTheTech and ImagineAFeministInternet
>>
>> Today, Friday the 9th of October 2015, misoynists, trolls and a
>> variety of people who associate with the #Gamergate hashtag decided
>> to occupy and corrupt the #TakeBackTheTech and
>> #ImagineAFeministInternet hashtags by posting thousands of
>> anti-feminist and misogynistic tweets and memes. This attack is the
>> response to a tweet chat organised by the Internet Governance
>> Forum, Best Practice Forum on Countering Online Violence and Abuse,
>> to discuss the impact of such violence. The volunteer who was
>> organising the tweet chat also received an email in her personal
>> inbox declaring the launch of the attack to “destroy” the
>> campaign.This online attack against feminist activism online is
>> deliberate, planned, and coordinated and it’s only one example of
>> the attack that feminists face online.
>>
>> Take Back the Tech! is a collaborative campaign to reclaim
>> technology to prevent violence against women. It started in 2006
>> and works with local partners to run campaigns online and offline
>> to raise awareness of technology-related violence against women and
>> girls, promote digital safety and amplify women’s voices online.As
>> a hashtag, #TakeBackTheTech has been used by activists to draw
>> attention to issues of online violence against women, and to
>> organise around periods like ‘Sixteen Days of Activism against
>> Gender Based Violence’. #ImagineAFeministInternet first came into
>> use in 2013 when the Association for Progressive Communications
>> convened a gathering of over 50 activists in Malaysia to discuss
>> what a Feminist Internet would look like - open, digitally secure,
>> safer for feminist activists. Increasingly
>> #ImagineAFeministInternet has become more popular as digitally
>> connected feminists have come together to conceptualise what a
>> safe, activist online space would look like.
>>
>> Today’s cyber attack by the trolls emphasise that more than ever
>> feminists and activists need to respond swiftly to online violence.
>> Our organisations, movements and allies need to support the digital
>> security of women’s rights defenders online. More than ever we need
>> to #TakeBackTheTech and #ImagineAFeministInternet. As individual
>> activists and members of various social justice activists we call
>> on you to do the following:
>>
>> Report abusive accounts to Twitter If you feel so inclined, create
>> alternative accounts to push back against the trolls Reclaim the
>> #TakeBackTheTech and #ImagineAFeministInternet hashtags Support the
>> process of documenting instances of online violence against women
>> Highlight the importance of feminism, technology and women's rights
>> online Share knowledge of how to end online violence against women
>> Support #TakeBackTheTech and our efforts to
>> #ImagineAFeministInternet
>>
>> Enquiries
>>
>> Jac Sm Kee Women's Rights Programme Manager, Association for
>> Progressive Communications Email: jac at apcwomen.org
>>
>> On 09/10/2015 22:12, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting roiling in the twittersphere around APC led tech and
>>>  feminism campaign.
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Air-L
>>> [mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Zara
>>> Rahman Sent: October 9, 2015 8:44 AM To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
>>> Subject: [Air-L] #gamergate trolling attack going on now against
>>> a feminist tech movement
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I thought this might be of interest for those of you studying
>>> trolling: there is a (seemingly well-coordinated) Gamergate going
>>> on right now against those using the hashtag #takebackthetech and
>>> (to a lesser extent) #imagineafeministinternet.
>>>
>>> Both of these hashtags started with the feminist organisation
>>> APC, and they were/are planning an online twitter discussion
>>> tonight on the impact of onlnie violence against women - but
>>> Gamergate trolls seem to have picked up on it in advance.
>>>
>>> The community is organising at the moment on how to respond, but
>>> if you're interested in following/studying/archiving the attack -
>>> head to #takebackthetech
>>> <https://twitter.com/hashtag/TakeBackTheTech?src=hash>.
>>>
>>> For reference: https://www.takebackthetech.net/
>>> https://www.apc.org/en/about/programmes/womens-networking-support-pro
>>>
>> g
>
>>
>>>
>>> ramme-
>
>> apc-wnsp
>>>
>>> Thanks - if you end up working on this topic further, please let
>>> me know! And, perhaps this goes without saying but please don't
>>> @/tag me or others in your responses if you choose to respond on
>>> Twitter. The organisers of the twitter chat have already received
>>> abusive twitter and email messages.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Zara
>>>
>>> -- Zara Rahman Fellow at Centre for Internet and Human Rights
>>> http://zararah.net | Twitter: @zararah
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ The
>>> Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the
>>> Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe,
>>> change options or unsubscribe at:
>>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>>>
>>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>>> http://www.aoir.org/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Forum mailing
>>> list Forum at justnetcoalition.org
>>> http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum
>>>
>>>
>> -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications
>> anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc
>> _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list
>> Forum at justnetcoalition.org
>> http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum
>>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWGQeAAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmIiEH/2LtWRlfGWIaCZlsITX36LCD
> AZYAKHwiyHjFv0NAY3AWvq9W8+4md33gbpbes1ITYfgfS0yU4qkhekhNotFwFQo/
> caIpOS1F7es7DiC8s/bPbOo7dr1f6NDRxoLPBoYcHHqmpBgzIuTLxfd5fHequEAe
> +91HqeP6W7UdRlfc0RAYCqxCBDj1v6d6oWqZlJ2Un7Rn4UoJRCkzRVuOfAJx8bAm
> gvRHEjYvTWAaRz10OQx4SyLlYcEomBY0xZB4Bwz6QUFOnXYP/ncmdNUsM89YVeWH
> i3mV7O/nU6DPXy6naQvJze4FE9wBDRvY4QxZHsnlnjtK62uSZeHn58I7e/PRtkI=
> =rG7X
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Forum mailing list
> Forum at justnetcoalition.org
> http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum mailing list
> Forum at justnetcoalition.org
> http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151012/dec45f4a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Oct 13 12:31:50 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:31:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fw: #gamergate trolling attack going on
 nowagainst a feminist tech movement
In-Reply-To: <CACobUJC5LYg1dFCoj28cWHRrQCV9+t8WJ+isjP9yeRju2YTC2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C0B731EB99CB4A4D8D54CD435AFEECC1@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN73ciaZM8MFv5fLkez8wNgfa-dsT+3uF+OJd5HH49CNiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hSVSp-FnxnLhfVcb8P0vDto=8BOTmsai1ySTDKfO-DPieuKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151013141819.5251155.1351.21156@gmail.com> <20151013142141.5251155.84841.21159@gmail.com>
 <CACobUJC5LYg1dFCoj28cWHRrQCV9+t8WJ+isjP9yeRju2YTC2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4R6gO4ziZ5MaLx6HXkjjJjWzVOKx=oZGOh817GH5mrrQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
I am forwarding this message on behalf of David Sullivan. Technical
difficulties over a change of address mean that he is unable to post it
himself.
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Sullivan <david.mcgraw.sullivan at gmail.com>
Date: 13 October 2015 at 11:07
Subject: Re: Fw: [governance] #gamergate trolling attack going on
nowagainst a feminist tech movement
To: williams.deirdre at gmail.com


thank you! i was writing to share this post i've authored which i think
would be of interest to the list:
http://www.undispatch.com/gamergate-vs-the-united-nations/


>
>
> --
> David Sullivan
> Policy and Communications Director
> Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org>
> Office: +1 202 793 3053
> Mobile: +1 646 595 5373
> @David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan>
>
>
>



-- 
“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/20151013/c2a29149/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Oct 14 06:07:02 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 06:07:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] On the EU Court's Striking Down Safe Harbor
Message-ID: <CAJkfFByuo=Xpa2GqCZaOdYYaFuJgohF1hDvbgPVPsDuY6A86sg@mail.gmail.com>

I call the confusion on this a "statutory bias" -- a tendency to think
you fix everything by passing a law or treaty. People don't understand
how popular sovereignty sets a foundation that makes modes of recourse
actually work. The EU based its fundamental rights charter on the
founding acts of the people that claimed those rights within the
several nations that make up the EU. As a result, the courts
appropriately apply fundamental rights as rights that take priority
over acts of the government, and in this case that applied to a treaty
with the US. A human rights treaty could never produce this kind of
result, because it's a treaty among governments, not an act setting
the priority of fundamental rights as limits on government. A whole
lot of the frame of "Internet governance" has a problem understanding
this basic characteristic of what's different in the international
arena.

Safe Harbor's falling down this year was a serious advance in the
discourse just when we needed it -- before a blind handoff of Internet
stewardship proceeded without understanding the nature of the
transition (This point would apply regardless of whether the Internet
had been "hosted" by the US or any other free country).

LIBE Committee to Commission: Why Did Safe Harbor Last 15 Years?
> https://iapp.org/news/a/libe-committee-to-commission-why-did-safe-harbor-last-15-years

European Court Chief Defends Decision to Strike Down Data-Transfer Agreement:
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/european-court-chief-defends-decision-to-strike-down-data-transfer-agreement-1444768419

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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Oct 14 06:12:30 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 06:12:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] On the EU Court's Striking Down Safe Harbor
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFByuo=Xpa2GqCZaOdYYaFuJgohF1hDvbgPVPsDuY6A86sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFByuo=Xpa2GqCZaOdYYaFuJgohF1hDvbgPVPsDuY6A86sg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBzmfgvVv-xYjHb+pVxvxo9K5WZj=X4NKPHzAqa7fdsx1A@mail.gmail.com>

One more:

This could frame an optimal approach to these concerns in the US,
particularly if it's set up on the basis of the US Constitution's ban
on unreasonable searches and seizures, and arranged the way the EU did
it, establishing a review of whether arrangements with other countries
preserve US citizens' fundamental rights. If the executive branch
calls that an encroachment on its powers, the question of what we can
do to secure the constitutional frame we the people set up for
ourselves is still the debate we want to have -- not the bogus "hide
what's really going on" debate we presently have on these issues. BTW:
smart use of divided/dual sovereignty (again reflecting the way the
framework in the EU is set up) might well in this case help to make
this sort of thing work.

Note well: this is not an international treaty on human rights that
makes it work.  International treaties on rights serve some valid
(aspirational) purposes, but they don't give you real fundamental
rights.

Safe Harbor Decision Could Spur Congressional Action On Privacy
Rights, Data Safeguards:
> http://www.ibtimes.com/safe-harbor-decision-could-spur-congressional-action-privacy-rights-data-safeguards-2131442

"International privacy advocates are demanding U.S. lawmakers pass
comprehensive reform that guarantees personal data stored in the
country is protected with the same safeguards as data in Europe. "

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> I call the confusion on this a "statutory bias" -- a tendency to think
> you fix everything by passing a law or treaty. People don't understand
> how popular sovereignty sets a foundation that makes modes of recourse
> actually work. The EU based its fundamental rights charter on the
> founding acts of the people that claimed those rights within the
> several nations that make up the EU. As a result, the courts
> appropriately apply fundamental rights as rights that take priority
> over acts of the government, and in this case that applied to a treaty
> with the US. A human rights treaty could never produce this kind of
> result, because it's a treaty among governments, not an act setting
> the priority of fundamental rights as limits on government. A whole
> lot of the frame of "Internet governance" has a problem understanding
> this basic characteristic of what's different in the international
> arena.
>
> Safe Harbor's falling down this year was a serious advance in the
> discourse just when we needed it -- before a blind handoff of Internet
> stewardship proceeded without understanding the nature of the
> transition (This point would apply regardless of whether the Internet
> had been "hosted" by the US or any other free country).
>
> LIBE Committee to Commission: Why Did Safe Harbor Last 15 Years?
>> https://iapp.org/news/a/libe-committee-to-commission-why-did-safe-harbor-last-15-years
>
> European Court Chief Defends Decision to Strike Down Data-Transfer Agreement:
>> http://www.wsj.com/articles/european-court-chief-defends-decision-to-strike-down-data-transfer-agreement-1444768419

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

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Oct 14 17:44:05 2015
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:44:05 +1200
Subject: [governance] On the EU Court's Striking Down Safe Harbor
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBzmfgvVv-xYjHb+pVxvxo9K5WZj=X4NKPHzAqa7fdsx1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFByuo=Xpa2GqCZaOdYYaFuJgohF1hDvbgPVPsDuY6A86sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJkfFBzmfgvVv-xYjHb+pVxvxo9K5WZj=X4NKPHzAqa7fdsx1A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiDCJdqMiOKNergvre=d6r9MxXWx80v0w2GamFgP71d-NA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Seth - very interesting developments.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> One more:
>
> This could frame an optimal approach to these concerns in the US,
> particularly if it's set up on the basis of the US Constitution's ban
> on unreasonable searches and seizures, and arranged the way the EU did
> it, establishing a review of whether arrangements with other countries
> preserve US citizens' fundamental rights. If the executive branch
> calls that an encroachment on its powers, the question of what we can
> do to secure the constitutional frame we the people set up for
> ourselves is still the debate we want to have -- not the bogus "hide
> what's really going on" debate we presently have on these issues. BTW:
> smart use of divided/dual sovereignty (again reflecting the way the
> framework in the EU is set up) might well in this case help to make
> this sort of thing work.
>
> Note well: this is not an international treaty on human rights that
> makes it work.  International treaties on rights serve some valid
> (aspirational) purposes, but they don't give you real fundamental
> rights.
>
> Safe Harbor Decision Could Spur Congressional Action On Privacy
> Rights, Data Safeguards:
> >
> http://www.ibtimes.com/safe-harbor-decision-could-spur-congressional-action-privacy-rights-data-safeguards-2131442
>
> "International privacy advocates are demanding U.S. lawmakers pass
> comprehensive reform that guarantees personal data stored in the
> country is protected with the same safeguards as data in Europe. "
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I call the confusion on this a "statutory bias" -- a tendency to think
> > you fix everything by passing a law or treaty. People don't understand
> > how popular sovereignty sets a foundation that makes modes of recourse
> > actually work. The EU based its fundamental rights charter on the
> > founding acts of the people that claimed those rights within the
> > several nations that make up the EU. As a result, the courts
> > appropriately apply fundamental rights as rights that take priority
> > over acts of the government, and in this case that applied to a treaty
> > with the US. A human rights treaty could never produce this kind of
> > result, because it's a treaty among governments, not an act setting
> > the priority of fundamental rights as limits on government. A whole
> > lot of the frame of "Internet governance" has a problem understanding
> > this basic characteristic of what's different in the international
> > arena.
> >
> > Safe Harbor's falling down this year was a serious advance in the
> > discourse just when we needed it -- before a blind handoff of Internet
> > stewardship proceeded without understanding the nature of the
> > transition (This point would apply regardless of whether the Internet
> > had been "hosted" by the US or any other free country).
> >
> > LIBE Committee to Commission: Why Did Safe Harbor Last 15 Years?
> >>
> https://iapp.org/news/a/libe-committee-to-commission-why-did-safe-harbor-last-15-years
> >
> > European Court Chief Defends Decision to Strike Down Data-Transfer
> Agreement:
> >>
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/european-court-chief-defends-decision-to-strike-down-data-transfer-agreement-1444768419
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 

*Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T*

*P. O. Box 17862*

*Suva*


*Republic of Fiji*

*Cell: +679 7656770; *

*Home: +679 3362003*
*Twitter: @SalanietaT*




*"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the
greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151015/6f1d9c5e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Oct 17 08:48:37 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:48:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] On the EU Court's Striking Down Safe Harbor
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFByuo=Xpa2GqCZaOdYYaFuJgohF1hDvbgPVPsDuY6A86sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFByuo=Xpa2GqCZaOdYYaFuJgohF1hDvbgPVPsDuY6A86sg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBx9sh53vxUWvjHefJ03UEudbwoJ83auinvhT=iW1-ARPg@mail.gmail.com>

This article explains how the ruling shows the importance of
fundamental rights as rooted in founding acts of free countries -- as
opposed to international treaty rights, which are inherently weak, a
basis for "balancing standard" style reasoning (at best) rather than
"strict scrutiny," where fundamental rights have priority.

Fallout from EU-US Safe Harbor ruling will be dramatic and far-reaching:
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/fallout-from-eu-us-safe-harbour-ruling-will-be-dramatic-and-far-reaching/

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> I call the confusion on this a "statutory bias" -- a tendency to think
> you fix everything by passing a law or treaty. People don't understand
> how popular sovereignty sets a foundation that makes modes of recourse
> actually work. The EU based its fundamental rights charter on the
> founding acts of the people that claimed those rights within the
> several nations that make up the EU. As a result, the courts
> appropriately apply fundamental rights as rights that take priority
> over acts of the government, and in this case that applied to a treaty
> with the US. A human rights treaty could never produce this kind of
> result, because it's a treaty among governments, not an act setting
> the priority of fundamental rights as limits on government. A whole
> lot of the frame of "Internet governance" has a problem understanding
> this basic characteristic of what's different in the international
> arena.
>
> Safe Harbor's falling down this year was a serious advance in the
> discourse just when we needed it -- before a blind handoff of Internet
> stewardship proceeded without understanding the nature of the
> transition (This point would apply regardless of whether the Internet
> had been "hosted" by the US or any other free country).
>
> LIBE Committee to Commission: Why Did Safe Harbor Last 15 Years?
>> https://iapp.org/news/a/libe-committee-to-commission-why-did-safe-harbor-last-15-years
>
> European Court Chief Defends Decision to Strike Down Data-Transfer Agreement:
>> http://www.wsj.com/articles/european-court-chief-defends-decision-to-strike-down-data-transfer-agreement-1444768419

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

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Sun Oct 18 08:17:48 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:17:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] For those in NY: APC/IFLA/InternetDemocracy/ISOC side
 event 19/10
In-Reply-To: <5622CC68.2050105@apc.org>
References: <5622CC68.2050105@apc.org>
Message-ID: <56238DEC.6070801@apc.org>


Dear all

Please do pass this on to people you know who will be in New York for
the WSIS meetings tomorrow. Apologies for cross posting.

Best

Anriette


https://www.apc.org/en/news/side-event-putting-people-centre-wsis10-review

And the link on the UN's WSIS+10 site:
http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/Events/Side-Events
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS+10 side event. Putting people at the center.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 115287 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151018/8904cacc/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 joly at punkcast.com  Sun Oct 18 09:04:38 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:04:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] For those in NY:
 APC/IFLA/InternetDemocracy/ISOC side event 19/10
In-Reply-To: <56238DEC.6070801@apc.org>
References: <5622CC68.2050105@apc.org> <56238DEC.6070801@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0NMVZtsDVufD1dBf1RbmGzcdP5Dxmao-F43=T2dzA3Sw@mail.gmail.com>

I am hoping video will become available of this.


s

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
wrote:

>
> Dear all
>
> Please do pass this on to people you know who will be in New York for
> the WSIS meetings tomorrow. Apologies for cross posting.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/news/side-event-putting-people-centre-wsis10-review
>
> And the link on the UN's WSIS+10 site:
> http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/Events/Side-Events
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151018/59fd826a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Mon Oct 19 12:24:02 2015
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:24:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] Human Rights in ICANN
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3rZc01tijmULSSPSF3tgnThYL3ceygfkdwL=7OubYgeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

A few ICANN meetings ago, a Working Party on ICANN and Human Rights has
been formed. This is a lose group of coordination with the participation of
several ICANN constituencies to discuss the impact that some of ICANN's
policies and procedures have on human rights, such as freedom of
expression, privacy, freedom of association and due process, among others.

There are several policy development processes to be started soon on new
gTLDs, WHOIS, etc that will have significant implications on Human Rights.
This group is both trying to intervene substantially in these policies so
they comply with human rights standards and also to introduce the adequate
procedures to ensure that Human Rights assessments take place in due time.

We are currently in Dublin for the 54th ICANN meeting. A summary of
sessions that will touch upon human rights or that are related to the topic
can be found here: bit.ly/1LSIbvQ <http://t.co/yJvbSnrcqT>

All session count on remote participation:
https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule-full

Several documents of interest have been produced so far by the Council of
Europe, Article 19, and much work has been developed with the input from
various members of this list.

http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Source/DGI_2014_12E%20Report%20ICANN%20and%20Human%20Rights%20updated%208%20Oct%202014.pdf
https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38003/ICANN_report_A5-for-webv2.pdf
https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38148/ICANN_CS_to_respect_HR_report_ALL_FINAL-PDF.pdf
(recently published)

This message is a quick update on what is taking place in this front and
also a call for those who wish to be involved. There are loads of work
coming down the pipe and it would be very important to have more civil
society and people with a human rights and public interest mindset to help.

Best wishes,
Marília



-- 
*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/20151019/675d0ca1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Tue Oct 20 07:11:03 2015
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:11:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
 Conditional on US Remaining in Control
Message-ID: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>

At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US NTIA 
was asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support 
the multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.

He said that it wouldn't.

https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151020/d110ac40/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 milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Tue Oct 20 07:21:38 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:21:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
 Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

No quite accurate. 
He was asked whether the US Congress would support changing the jurisdiction of ICANN. 
He said no. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:11 AM
> To: BestBits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
> Conditional on US Remaining in Control
> 
> At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US NTIA was
> asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support the
> multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
> 
> He said that it wouldn't.
> 
> https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
> 
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91
> 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> https://twitter.com/pranesh

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

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

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

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Tue Oct 20 07:24:13 2015
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:24:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <CAOr9Jxnc78wFN3Xig2jg5P0C86=j0KqgiLo_kXRCrOsE=unHBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <CAOr9Jxnc78wFN3Xig2jg5P0C86=j0KqgiLo_kXRCrOsE=unHBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F64BCDF3-D17F-41BA-B905-670FF319FE8A@gmail.com>

It sounds like Larry was giving an assessment of the current Congress. That is not necessarily the only path forward for the Obama Administration, they could try to move forward without Congressional support.

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Adding to that, he also said that the issue of jurisdiction doesn't relate to the physical presence of ICANN  as much as the jurisdiction of dispute resolution mechanisms, and to not focus on the former which is not as relevant. 
> Basically, no move in jurisdiction will ever be supported.
> 
>> On 20 Oct 2015 16:43, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>> At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US NTIA was asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support the multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
>> 
>> He said that it wouldn't.
>> 
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>> 
>> -- 
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
>> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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/20151020/08f485b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Tue Oct 20 07:26:33 2015
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:26:33 -0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <F64BCDF3-D17F-41BA-B905-670FF319FE8A@gmail.com>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <CAOr9Jxnc78wFN3Xig2jg5P0C86=j0KqgiLo_kXRCrOsE=unHBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F64BCDF3-D17F-41BA-B905-670FF319FE8A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uEzphFbxy74Mw2GbbVrmYf1YNnJ7yjtxKb3NKZy2+zgwA@mail.gmail.com>

or maybe a mere bluff by Larry :)

either way: extracting the USA govt out of this system does extract the
system out of the direct/indirect control of the USA, isnt it?

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:

> It sounds like Larry was giving an assessment of the current Congress.
> That is not necessarily the only path forward for the Obama Administration,
> they could try to move forward without Congressional support.
>
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Adding to that, he also said that the issue of jurisdiction doesn't relate
> to the physical presence of ICANN  as much as the jurisdiction of dispute
> resolution mechanisms, and to not focus on the former which is not as
> relevant.
> Basically, no move in jurisdiction will ever be supported.
> On 20 Oct 2015 16:43, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>
>> At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US NTIA
>> was asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support the
>> multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
>>
>> He said that it wouldn't.
>>
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>>
>> --
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
>> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
*Diego R. Canabarro*
http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
diegocanabarro [at] *gmail.com <http://gmail.com>*
Cell # +55-11-99441470 (São Paulo) / +55-51-8108-1098 (Porto Alegre)
Skype: diegocanabarro
Social networking: diegorrcc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151020/9d1f6e61/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Oct 20 07:33:20 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:03:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <F64BCDF3-D17F-41BA-B905-670FF319FE8A@gmail.com>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <CAOr9Jxnc78wFN3Xig2jg5P0C86=j0KqgiLo_kXRCrOsE=unHBA@mail.gmail.com> <F64BCDF3-D17F-41BA-B905-670FF319FE8A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56262680.3080401@itforchange.net>



On Tuesday 20 October 2015 04:54 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote:
> It sounds like Larry was giving an assessment of the current Congress.
> That is not necessarily the only path forward for the Obama
> Administration, they could try to move forward without Congressional
> support.

Gene

Are you seriously suggesting that Obama administration could be open to
consider jurisdictional change?

parminder 
>
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com
> <mailto:pdmnbaruah at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Adding to that, he also said that the issue of jurisdiction doesn't
>> relate to the physical presence of ICANN  as much as the jurisdiction
>> of dispute resolution mechanisms, and to not focus on the former
>> which is not as relevant.
>> Basically, no move in jurisdiction will ever be supported.
>>
>> On 20 Oct 2015 16:43, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org
>> <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the
>>     US NTIA was asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress
>>     would support the multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction
>>     were to shift.
>>
>>     He said that it wouldn't.
>>
>>     https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Pranesh Prakash
>>     Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>>     http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
>>     <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283>
>>     sip:pranesh at ostel.co <mailto:sip%3Apranesh at ostel.co> |
>>     xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:xmpp%3Apranesh at cis-india.org>
>>     https://twitter.com/pranesh
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     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:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151020/6c0befa7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Oct 20 07:40:53 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:10:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <CAOr9Jxnc78wFN3Xig2jg5P0C86=j0KqgiLo_kXRCrOsE=unHBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <CAOr9Jxnc78wFN3Xig2jg5P0C86=j0KqgiLo_kXRCrOsE=unHBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56262845.1000800@itforchange.net>



On Tuesday 20 October 2015 04:45 PM, Padmini wrote:
>
> Adding to that, he also said that the issue of jurisdiction doesn't
> relate to the physical presence of ICANN  as much as the jurisdiction
> of dispute resolution mechanisms, and to not focus on the former which
> is not as relevant.
>

That is a deliberately misleading statement -- jurisdiction has not only
to do with judicial oversight or enforcement of dispute resolutions
mechanisms-- it is much more important vis a vis ICANN continuing to be
subject to all arms of the government of the US, judicial, legislative
and executive....

He is able to speak like that bec the 'ICANN crowd' has traditionally
shown itself to be a gullible group, ready or willing to be easily
mislead with regard to these key political issues, which are of central
importance to the people of the world
 
>
> Basically, no move in jurisdiction will ever be supported.
>

This was always known..... Civil society groups should have put the two
issues of 'jurisdiction' and 'external oversight' (external to the
current ICANN power configurations which extent to a good part of the so
called ICANN communtiy - for instance see ALAC's lame give in ) up front
to be resolved first, without sepnding months on the intricacies of
Californian law on non profits, and what constitutes a board fiduciary
duty, and such triva...

parminder

> On 20 Oct 2015 16:43, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org
> <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
>
>     At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US
>     NTIA was asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress
>     would support the multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction
>     were to shift.
>
>     He said that it wouldn't.
>
>     https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>
>     -- 
>     Pranesh Prakash
>     Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>     http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283>
>     sip:pranesh at ostel.co <mailto:sip%3Apranesh at ostel.co> |
>     xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:xmpp%3Apranesh at cis-india.org>
>     https://twitter.com/pranesh
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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/20151020/cd5cc4e7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 20 07:44:53 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:44:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFByu9sthxcuR1_Wa7ZbDfFUBM22PyFOK8z_=j5xEvMwV5Q@mail.gmail.com>

Pleased to hear that the topic of jurisdiction shifting came up again.

I specifically criticized the misframing of the jurisdiction issue in
the CCWG-Accountability group's Paris meeting a few weeks back.


Seth

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US NTIA was
> asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support the
> multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
>
> He said that it wouldn't.
>
> https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 pranesh at cis-india.org  Tue Oct 20 07:53:10 2015
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:53:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org>

Dear Gene and Milton, 
Respectfully, you seem to have missed this bit from Larry's testimony before the House Sub-committee, which prompted this question. 

https://youtu.be/8v-yWye5I0w

"It's today, in the byelaws, that ICANN will remain in California, and of course their articles of incorporation as currently established require that it be a California corporation. So, there has been no proposal - serious proposal, made in the course of these discussions to move the location of ICANN outside of the United States. Frankly, if it were being proposed, I don't think that such a proposal would satisfy our criteria, specifically the one that requires that security and stability be maintained. So, we expect that this would continue on into the future."

It's not just Strickling's view on what Congress would say, but the administration's precondition. Unless, of course he lied before the House Sub-committee. 

Regards, 
Pranesh 


On 20 October 2015 12:35:47 pm GMT+01:00, Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com> wrote:
>Oh no,  Mr. Mueller. My question was two parts. Will US support a
>change in
>jurisdiction and will there be support for the multistakeholder in the
>event that jurisdiction changes?
>He said very eloquently -  no.
>On 20 Oct 2015 17:04, "Mueller, Milton L" <
>milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> No quite accurate.
>> He was asked whether the US Congress would support changing the
>> jurisdiction of ICANN.
>> He said no.
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>> > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
>> > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:11 AM
>> > To: BestBits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
>> > Conditional on US Remaining in Control
>> >
>> > At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US
>NTIA
>> was
>> > asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support
>the
>> > multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
>> >
>> > He said that it wouldn't.
>> >
>> > https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>> >
>> > --
>> > Pranesh Prakash
>> > Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>http://cis-india.org |
>> tel:+91
>> > 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>> > https://twitter.com/pranesh
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh

Sent over open standards using free software on a mobile device. Please excuse my brevity.

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

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

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

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Tue Oct 20 08:21:40 2015
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:21:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <56262680.3080401@itforchange.net>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <CAOr9Jxnc78wFN3Xig2jg5P0C86=j0KqgiLo_kXRCrOsE=unHBA@mail.gmail.com> <F64BCDF3-D17F-41BA-B905-670FF319FE8A@gmail.com> <56262680.3080401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <7A2C591C-941D-4F6C-8F37-C60670BC125C@gmail.com>

The Administration is probably open to much broader change than the Congress. How far that goes, I'm not sure.

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:33 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tuesday 20 October 2015 04:54 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote:
>> It sounds like Larry was giving an assessment of the current Congress. That is not necessarily the only path forward for the Obama Administration, they could try to move forward without Congressional support.
> 
> Gene
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that Obama administration could be open to consider jurisdictional change?
> 
> parminder  
>> 
>> On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Adding to that, he also said that the issue of jurisdiction doesn't relate to the physical presence of ICANN  as much as the jurisdiction of dispute resolution mechanisms, and to not focus on the former which is not as relevant. 
>>> Basically, no move in jurisdiction will ever be supported.
>>> 
>>>> On 20 Oct 2015 16:43, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>>>> At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US NTIA was asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support the multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
>>>> 
>>>> He said that it wouldn't.
>>>> 
>>>> https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Pranesh Prakash
>>>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>>>> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
>>>> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>>>> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151020/8c3c55d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Tue Oct 20 08:32:32 2015
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:32:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com> <D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <52439CE1-0431-48F3-BD90-B9A24F7B4C3D@gmail.com>

"I don't think " is neither indicative of an Administration official position nor a lie. But regardless of that, my comment referred only to the relatively different positions of the majority in Congress and the Administration. As a practical matter it may not make a big difference for the point you wish to make.

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:53 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Gene and Milton, 
> Respectfully, you seem to have missed this bit from Larry's testimony before the House Sub-committee, which prompted this question. 
> 
> https://youtu.be/8v-yWye5I0w
> 
> "It's today, in the byelaws, that ICANN will remain in California, and of course their articles of incorporation as currently established require that it be a California corporation. So, there has been no proposal - serious proposal, made in the course of these discussions to move the location of ICANN outside of the United States. Frankly, if it were being proposed, I don't think that such a proposal would satisfy our criteria, specifically the one that requires that security and stability be maintained. So, we expect that this would continue on into the future."
> 
> It's not just Strickling's view on what Congress would say, but the administration's precondition. Unless, of course he lied before the House Sub-committee. 
> 
> Regards, 
> Pranesh 
> 
> 
>> On 20 October 2015 12:35:47 pm GMT+01:00, Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Oh no,  Mr. Mueller. My question was two parts. Will US support a
>> change in
>> jurisdiction and will there be support for the multistakeholder in the
>> event that jurisdiction changes?
>> He said very eloquently -  no.
>> On 20 Oct 2015 17:04, "Mueller, Milton L" <
>> milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> No quite accurate.
>>> He was asked whether the US Congress would support changing the
>>> jurisdiction of ICANN.
>>> He said no.
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>>>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:11 AM
>>>> To: BestBits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
>>>> Conditional on US Remaining in Control
>>>> 
>>>> At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US
>> NTIA
>>> was
>>>> asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support
>> the
>>>> multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
>>>> 
>>>> He said that it wouldn't.
>>>> 
>>>> https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Pranesh Prakash
>>>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>> http://cis-india.org |
>>> tel:+91
>>>> 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>>>> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> -- 
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> https://twitter.com/pranesh
> 
> Sent over open standards using free software on a mobile device. Please excuse my brevity.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 gurcharya at gmail.com  Tue Oct 20 08:39:29 2015
From: gurcharya at gmail.com (Guru Acharya)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:09:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
	<DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CAEEwkf7L6e=6-uGQ6K506FTbmv=usWDvv3yLPkahjPHv-vBMNA@mail.gmail.com>

Its shocking to hear that we have been misled all along that jurisdiction
is a part of Work Stream 2 of CCWG! Why couldn't NTIA be upfront while
announcing the transition and list this condition as the 5th
principle/criteria? They have extracted endless number of man hours from us
under false promises of a bottom-up process whereas most of the major
issues are being dictated top-down by the NTIA!

During the deliberations of the CWG and CCWG, there are two constant
arguments used by status quoists that have dangled as sharp swords over the
participants:
1) We suspect that the NTIA will not accept this change causing the
transition to fail.
2) We suspect that the Board will not accept this change causing the
transition to fail.

Ultimately, participants are so fearful of crossing these imaginary
boundaries of what NTIA may accept, that we have started faithfully
reproducing what NTIA desires. We are so fearful of a failed transition
that we err on the side of status quo.

However, what hits me the most that the United States is selectively
following multistakeholder processes where its convenient for them. The
recent RZM proposal developed secretly by NTIA, Verisign and ICANN
demonstrate that multistakeholder processes are endorsed by the United
States only when its convenient to their interests.

I only wish the WSIS document, while endorsing multistakeholder processes,
was substantive enough to recognise US dominant control (by corporate
capture, by judicial control, by executive control and by legislative
control) over multistakeholder processes and organisations as an issue that
needs resolution over time. I dont understand the point behind living in
denial. Who are we even fooling?

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
wrote:

> Dear Gene and Milton,
> Respectfully, you seem to have missed this bit from Larry's testimony
> before the House Sub-committee, which prompted this question.
>
> https://youtu.be/8v-yWye5I0w
>
> "It's today, in the byelaws, that ICANN will remain in California, and of
> course their articles of incorporation as currently established require
> that it be a California corporation. So, there has been no proposal -
> serious proposal, made in the course of these discussions to move the
> location of ICANN outside of the United States. Frankly, if it were being
> proposed, I don't think that such a proposal would satisfy our criteria,
> specifically the one that requires that security and stability be
> maintained. So, we expect that this would continue on into the future."
>
> It's not just Strickling's view on what Congress would say, but the
> administration's precondition. Unless, of course he lied before the House
> Sub-committee.
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
>
> On 20 October 2015 12:35:47 pm GMT+01:00, Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Oh no,  Mr. Mueller. My question was two parts. Will US support a
> >change in
> >jurisdiction and will there be support for the multistakeholder in the
> >event that jurisdiction changes?
> >He said very eloquently -  no.
> >On 20 Oct 2015 17:04, "Mueller, Milton L" <
> >milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> No quite accurate.
> >> He was asked whether the US Congress would support changing the
> >> jurisdiction of ICANN.
> >> He said no.
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> >> > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:11 AM
> >> > To: BestBits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> > Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
> >> > Conditional on US Remaining in Control
> >> >
> >> > At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US
> >NTIA
> >> was
> >> > asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support
> >the
> >> > multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
> >> >
> >> > He said that it wouldn't.
> >> >
> >> > https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Pranesh Prakash
> >> > Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> >http://cis-india.org |
> >> tel:+91
> >> > 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> >> > https://twitter.com/pranesh
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>
> Sent over open standards using free software on a mobile device. Please
> excuse my brevity.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20151020/0963a752/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Oct 20 08:45:07 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:15:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <52439CE1-0431-48F3-BD90-B9A24F7B4C3D@gmail.com>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com> <D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org> <52439CE1-0431-48F3-BD90-B9A24F7B4C3D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B9D9F9BA-855A-4625-9B60-F9138DD0BFDD@hserus.net>

Come on, folks.  Asking a fairly ambiguous question, getting an equally ambiguous answer and then making a mountain out of a molehill just to score a point doesn’t sound like a very productive way to go.

Gene is correct, here.

> On 20-Oct-2015, at 6:02 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> "I don't think " is neither indicative of an Administration official position nor a lie. But regardless of that, my comment referred only to the relatively different positions of the majority in Congress and the Administration. As a practical matter it may not make a big difference for the point you wish to make.


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

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

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

From dl at panamo.eu  Tue Oct 20 10:01:29 2015
From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:01:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
 Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
 <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <56264939.4060803@panamo.eu>

Maybe Larry Strickling's announce at the NetMundial, about Icann's 
possible freedom, was just a great tactical move, after Snowden's affair 
and Dilma Roussef's anger.

Let's recognize that it was of great art!
As a proof: we are still surmising about the real meaning and possible 
consequences...

May I remind you a little photo story:
http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/04/23/netmundial-anatomie-promesse/

@+, best regards, Dom

--
Dominique Lacroix
https://panamo.eu

Le 20/10/2015 13:21, Mueller, Milton L a écrit :
> No quite accurate.
> He was asked whether the US Congress would support changing the jurisdiction of ICANN.
> He said no.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:11 AM
>> To: BestBits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
>> Conditional on US Remaining in Control
>>
>> At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US NTIA was
>> asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support the
>> multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
>>
>> He said that it wouldn't.
>>
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>>
>> --
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91
>> 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151020/ed564fe0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Tue Oct 20 10:05:47 2015
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:05:47 -0200
Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
 Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <56264939.4060803@panamo.eu>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
	<DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<56264939.4060803@panamo.eu>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uE0wrJrBjgOM-E2V4iqpAbNX2FM7Gx4jDv5O-yFLHqaPA@mail.gmail.com>

You are completely right in that assessment. Agenda setting as political
power 101.
Em 20/10/2015 15:02, "Dominique Lacroix" <dl at panamo.eu> escreveu:

> Maybe Larry Strickling's announce at the NetMundial, about Icann's
> possible freedom, was just a great tactical move, after Snowden's affair
> and Dilma Roussef's anger.
>
> Let's recognize that it was of great art!
> As a proof: we are still surmising about the real meaning and possible
> consequences...
>
> May I remind you a little photo story:
> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/04/23/netmundial-anatomie-promesse/
>
> @+, best regards, Dom
>
> --
> Dominique Lacroix
> https://panamo.eu
>
> Le 20/10/2015 13:21, Mueller, Milton L a écrit :
>
> No quite accurate.
> He was asked whether the US Congress would support changing the jurisdiction of ICANN.
> He said no.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance <governance>-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:11 AM
> To: BestBits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
> Conditional on US Remaining in Control
>
> At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US NTIA was
> asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support the
> multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
>
> He said that it wouldn't.
> https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91
> 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.orghttps://twitter.com/pranesh
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151020/3211ec39/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Oct 20 10:30:26 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:30:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] Facebook and data
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7Y65bFSDk7-QCBccRb27CoB1eu2K4t7Lm0AR08BieCgw@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34581891

The social network had initially hoped to take part in the proceedings in
Dublin to correct what it said were "inaccuracies" about its reported
procedures and processes.

However, there was no opportunity to do so because the DPC did not contest
whether it should launch an investigation.

I found these two paragraphs to be of particular interest.

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/20151020/a46314d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Oct 20 11:11:00 2015
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:11:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
 Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <CA+MV=uE0wrJrBjgOM-E2V4iqpAbNX2FM7Gx4jDv5O-yFLHqaPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
	<DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<56264939.4060803@panamo.eu>
	<CA+MV=uE0wrJrBjgOM-E2V4iqpAbNX2FM7Gx4jDv5O-yFLHqaPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0GWJHCt9of0a+NCgdvds-0gGRm71kYL+aCHTRS3hcuzHg@mail.gmail.com>

Pranesh,


As Padmini says her question was in two parts, could the response have been
for the first question and not for the questions together?  I have observed
that in panel discussions, in q&a sometimes the questions are either not so
well communicated, or not clearly heard and understood.

A No to the first part of the question is possible. It is well known that
US Government would not easily agree to a change in Jurisdiction.

But on the second part of the question, I would be very very surprised if
US would say that its support for the multistakeholder process is
conditional.  It can not possibly be. Any national government that supports
the multistakeholder process would so at a fundamental level,
unconditionally.

Hope that there is some clarification received from Larry Strickling on
this.

Sivasubramanian M

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

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

> You are completely right in that assessment. Agenda setting as political
> power 101.
> Em 20/10/2015 15:02, "Dominique Lacroix" <dl at panamo.eu> escreveu:
>
>> Maybe Larry Strickling's announce at the NetMundial, about Icann's
>> possible freedom, was just a great tactical move, after Snowden's affair
>> and Dilma Roussef's anger.
>>
>> Let's recognize that it was of great art!
>> As a proof: we are still surmising about the real meaning and possible
>> consequences...
>>
>> May I remind you a little photo story:
>> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/04/23/netmundial-anatomie-promesse/
>>
>> @+, best regards, Dom
>>
>> --
>> Dominique Lacroix
>> https://panamo.eu
>>
>> Le 20/10/2015 13:21, Mueller, Milton L a écrit :
>>
>> No quite accurate.
>> He was asked whether the US Congress would support changing the jurisdiction of ICANN.
>> He said no.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance <governance>-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:11 AM
>> To: BestBits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is
>> Conditional on US Remaining in Control
>>
>> At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US NTIA was
>> asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support the
>> multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
>>
>> He said that it wouldn't.
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>>
>> --
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+9180 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.orghttps://twitter.com/pranesh
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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/20151020/3ec99236/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From director at ipop.org.pk  Tue Oct 20 11:14:26 2015
From: director at ipop.org.pk (Arzak Khan)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:14:26 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: Facebook and data
In-Reply-To: <BLU180-W94144FC4034B40B3B3DE64FF390@phx.gbl>
References:  <CAMz5XN7Y65bFSDk7-QCBccRb27CoB1eu2K4t7Lm0AR08BieCgw@mail.gmail.com>,<BLU180-W94144FC4034B40B3B3DE64FF390@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BLU180-W9AB3D49F6CFEC6650E342FF390@phx.gbl>


 

Just a thought what does FB gets in return for providing so much personal data of every user in the world to government agencies?
 
 
Arzak
 
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:30:26 -0400
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] Facebook and data

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34581891
The social network had initially hoped to take part in the proceedings in Dublin to correct what it said were "inaccuracies" about its reported procedures and processes.However, there was no opportunity to do so because the DPC did not contest whether it should launch an investigation.I found these two paragraphs to be of particular interest.Deirdre
-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 		 	   		   		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151020/5b7f2d49/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Tue Oct 20 11:18:53 2015
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:18:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <B9D9F9BA-855A-4625-9B60-F9138DD0BFDD@hserus.net>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
 <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org>
 <52439CE1-0431-48F3-BD90-B9A24F7B4C3D@gmail.com>
 <B9D9F9BA-855A-4625-9B60-F9138DD0BFDD@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <56265B5D.3040105@cis-india.org>

On 20 October 2015 1:45:07 pm GMT+01:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>Come on, folks.  Asking a fairly ambiguous question, getting an equally
>ambiguous answer and then making a mountain out of a molehill just to
>score a point doesn’t sound like a very productive way to go.

Dear Suresh,
Could you please point out the ambiguity in the questions and suggest 
how we could rephrase it to avoid that ambiguity the next time we ask 
it?  Thanks.

The question was:
The technical stability of the DNS doesn't depend on the jurisdiction of 
ICANN.  Will the US Congress support a shift in jurisdiction?  And will 
there be a continued support for the multistakeholder model if the 
jurisdiction shifts?

The transcript for the meeting will be provided soon:
https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/tue-ncuc

Regards,
Pranesh

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151020/24eba1f9/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Oct 20 11:29:58 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:59:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: Facebook and data
In-Reply-To: <BLU180-W9AB3D49F6CFEC6650E342FF390@phx.gbl>
References: <CAMz5XN7Y65bFSDk7-QCBccRb27CoB1eu2K4t7Lm0AR08BieCgw@mail.gmail.com>,<BLU180-W94144FC4034B40B3B3DE64FF390@phx.gbl> <BLU180-W9AB3D49F6CFEC6650E342FF390@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <56265DF6.9060007@itforchange.net>



On Tuesday 20 October 2015 08:44 PM, Arzak Khan wrote:
>
>  
> Just a thought what does FB gets in return for providing so much
> personal data of every user in the world to government agencies?

You have heard of military-industrial complex, right..... there is a
similar political -economic nexus in terms of digital power... FB gets
US government’s cover to promote a global order of free data err
information flow, a paradigm of non regulation in the digital space ,
multistakeholder smokescreen to keep real governance issues hidden, and
so on..... Deigo spoke about political power, this is geo-politics
101..... only i do not understand the civil society abdication in all
this, and its gullibility

parminder
>  
>  
> Arzak
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:30:26 -0400
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] Facebook and data
>
> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34581891
>
> The social network had initially hoped to take part in the proceedings
> in Dublin to correct what it said were "inaccuracies" about its
> reported procedures and processes.
>
> However, there was no opportunity to do so because the DPC did not
> contest whether it should launch an investigation.
>
> I found these two paragraphs to be of particular interest.
>
> Deirdre
>
>
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information
> and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit
> your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email:
> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151020/002ab9d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Oct 20 11:31:05 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:01:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <56265B5D.3040105@cis-india.org>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com> <D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org> <52439CE1-0431-48F3-BD90-B9A24F7B4C3D@gmail.com> <B9D9F9BA-855A-4625-9B60-F9138DD0BFDD@hserus.net> <56265B5D.3040105@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <4D7F85F5-BB0E-4C35-A3F3-CFC9F7EEAA8A@hserus.net>

The question here would be how or why he can speak for congress as a whole as opposed to current administration policy.

--srs

> On 20-Oct-2015, at 8:48 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 20 October 2015 1:45:07 pm GMT+01:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> Come on, folks.  Asking a fairly ambiguous question, getting an equally
>> ambiguous answer and then making a mountain out of a molehill just to
>> score a point doesn’t sound like a very productive way to go.
> 
> Dear Suresh,
> Could you please point out the ambiguity in the questions and suggest how we could rephrase it to avoid that ambiguity the next time we ask it?  Thanks.
> 
> The question was:
> The technical stability of the DNS doesn't depend on the jurisdiction of ICANN.  Will the US Congress support a shift in jurisdiction?  And will there be a continued support for the multistakeholder model if the jurisdiction shifts?
> 
> The transcript for the meeting will be provided soon:
> https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/tue-ncuc
> 
> Regards,
> Pranesh
> 

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

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Oct 20 12:00:58 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:00:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <4D7F85F5-BB0E-4C35-A3F3-CFC9F7EEAA8A@hserus.net>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org> <52439CE1-0431-48F3-BD90-B9A24F7B4C3D@gmail.com>
 <B9D9F9BA-855A-4625-9B60-F9138DD0BFDD@hserus.net> <56265B5D.3040105@cis-india.org>
 <4D7F85F5-BB0E-4C35-A3F3-CFC9F7EEAA8A@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5cKa3-za+dOCLBsrWO9PZ3pfs29FOXj9RVwp=ZCb_KQg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Suresh,
I suspect the authority may be the same as that that allows ICANN to speak
for "stakeholders across the global Internet community"
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions

Best wishes
Deirdre


On 20 October 2015 at 11:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
wrote:

> The question here would be how or why he can speak for congress as a whole
> as opposed to current administration policy.
>
> --srs
>
> > On 20-Oct-2015, at 8:48 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 October 2015 1:45:07 pm GMT+01:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> >> Come on, folks.  Asking a fairly ambiguous question, getting an equally
> >> ambiguous answer and then making a mountain out of a molehill just to
> >> score a point doesn’t sound like a very productive way to go.
> >
> > Dear Suresh,
> > Could you please point out the ambiguity in the questions and suggest
> how we could rephrase it to avoid that ambiguity the next time we ask it?
> Thanks.
> >
> > The question was:
> > The technical stability of the DNS doesn't depend on the jurisdiction of
> ICANN.  Will the US Congress support a shift in jurisdiction?  And will
> there be a continued support for the multistakeholder model if the
> jurisdiction shifts?
> >
> > The transcript for the meeting will be provided soon:
> > https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/tue-ncuc
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pranesh
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151020/dffe777f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Oct 20 12:02:51 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:32:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5cKa3-za+dOCLBsrWO9PZ3pfs29FOXj9RVwp=ZCb_KQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com> <D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org> <52439CE1-0431-48F3-BD90-B9A24F7B4C3D@gmail.com> <B9D9F9BA-855A-4625-9B60-F9138DD0BFDD@hserus.net> <56265B5D.3040105@cis-india.org> <4D7F85F5-BB0E-4C35-A3F3-CFC9F7EEAA8A@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN5cKa3-za+dOCLBsrWO9PZ3pfs29FOXj9RVwp=ZCb_KQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <657E57DD-D217-4C31-A14D-EFA02C7E79D5@hserus.net>

Civil society and multistakeholder groups are rife with some people claiming to be spokespersons for everybody under the sun.

Government officials are bound by a rather more specific set of rules, I’d expect.

regards
suresh

> On 20-Oct-2015, at 9:30 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Suresh,
> I suspect the authority may be the same as that that allows ICANN to speak for "stakeholders across the global Internet community" http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> 
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
> 
> 
> On 20 October 2015 at 11:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
> The question here would be how or why he can speak for congress as a whole as opposed to current administration policy.
> 
> --srs
> 
> > On 20-Oct-2015, at 8:48 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 October 2015 1:45:07 pm GMT+01:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
> >> Come on, folks.  Asking a fairly ambiguous question, getting an equally
> >> ambiguous answer and then making a mountain out of a molehill just to
> >> score a point doesn’t sound like a very productive way to go.
> >
> > Dear Suresh,
> > Could you please point out the ambiguity in the questions and suggest how we could rephrase it to avoid that ambiguity the next time we ask it?  Thanks.
> >
> > The question was:
> > The technical stability of the DNS doesn't depend on the jurisdiction of ICANN.  Will the US Congress support a shift in jurisdiction?  And will there be a continued support for the multistakeholder model if the jurisdiction shifts?
> >
> > The transcript for the meeting will be provided soon:
> > https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/tue-ncuc <https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/tue-ncuc>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pranesh
> >
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> “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/20151020/c3b65b21/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From director at ipop.org.pk  Tue Oct 20 14:16:13 2015
From: director at ipop.org.pk (Arzak Khan)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:16:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: Facebook and data
In-Reply-To: <56265DF6.9060007@itforchange.net>
References:  <CAMz5XN7Y65bFSDk7-QCBccRb27CoB1eu2K4t7Lm0AR08BieCgw@mail.gmail.com>,<BLU180-W94144FC4034B40B3B3DE64FF390@phx.gbl>
 <BLU180-W9AB3D49F6CFEC6650E342FF390@phx.gbl>,<56265DF6.9060007@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BLU180-W81DC8F0BBFC9D9A1909A6AFF390@phx.gbl>

Parminder do you think the smokescreen under which "multistakeholder" governance model is being hidden will last long? 
 

 
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:59:58 +0530
From: parminder at itforchange.net
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Facebook and data


  
    
  
  
    

    

    On Tuesday 20 October 2015 08:44 PM,
      Arzak Khan wrote:

    
    
      
      

         
        

        
          Just a thought what does FB gets in return for
            providing so much personal data of every user in the world
            to government agencies?

          
        
      
    
    

    You have heard of military-industrial complex, right..... there is a
    similar political -economic nexus in terms of digital power... FB
    gets US government’s cover to promote a global order of free data
    err information flow, a paradigm of non regulation in the digital
    space , multistakeholder smokescreen to keep real governance issues
    hidden, and so on..... Deigo spoke about political power, this is
    geo-politics 101..... only i do not understand the civil society
    abdication in all this, and its gullibility

    

    parminder 

    
      
        
           

             

            Arzak

             

            
              From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com

              Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:30:26 -0400

              To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org

              Subject: [governance] Facebook and data

              

              http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34581891
                

                
                
                  The social network had
                    initially hoped to take part in the proceedings in
                    Dublin to correct what it said were "inaccuracies"
                    about its reported procedures and processes.
                  However, there was no
                    opportunity to do so because the DPC did not contest
                    whether it should launch an investigation.
                  I
                    found these two paragraphs to be of particular
                    interest.
                  Deirdre
                  

                  
                  -- 

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

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

      
      

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

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

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

    
    

  


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151020/e88047e1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 20 14:59:28 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:59:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <657E57DD-D217-4C31-A14D-EFA02C7E79D5@hserus.net>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org> <52439CE1-0431-48F3-BD90-B9A24F7B4C3D@gmail.com>
 <B9D9F9BA-855A-4625-9B60-F9138DD0BFDD@hserus.net> <56265B5D.3040105@cis-india.org>
 <4D7F85F5-BB0E-4C35-A3F3-CFC9F7EEAA8A@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN5cKa3-za+dOCLBsrWO9PZ3pfs29FOXj9RVwp=ZCb_KQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <657E57DD-D217-4C31-A14D-EFA02C7E79D5@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFByNDomzqfehAUSbjbkNdL8VHxvUuY3E6RREJ4nDGSrMVA@mail.gmail.com>

It's more that reaching fairly dependable general conclusions about
the legislative branch is not too hard these days.


Seth

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> Civil society and multistakeholder groups are rife with some people claiming
> to be spokespersons for everybody under the sun.
>
> Government officials are bound by a rather more specific set of rules, I’d
> expect.
>
> regards
> suresh
>
> On 20-Oct-2015, at 9:30 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Suresh,
> I suspect the authority may be the same as that that allows ICANN to speak
> for "stakeholders across the global Internet community"
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 20 October 2015 at 11:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> The question here would be how or why he can speak for congress as a whole
>> as opposed to current administration policy.
>>
>> --srs
>>
>> > On 20-Oct-2015, at 8:48 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 20 October 2015 1:45:07 pm GMT+01:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> >> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> >> Come on, folks.  Asking a fairly ambiguous question, getting an equally
>> >> ambiguous answer and then making a mountain out of a molehill just to
>> >> score a point doesn’t sound like a very productive way to go.
>> >
>> > Dear Suresh,
>> > Could you please point out the ambiguity in the questions and suggest
>> > how we could rephrase it to avoid that ambiguity the next time we ask it?
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > The question was:
>> > The technical stability of the DNS doesn't depend on the jurisdiction of
>> > ICANN.  Will the US Congress support a shift in jurisdiction?  And will
>> > there be a continued support for the multistakeholder model if the
>> > jurisdiction shifts?
>> >
>> > The transcript for the meeting will be provided soon:
>> > https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/tue-ncuc
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Pranesh
>> >
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 20 16:53:05 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:53:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] TPP
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
 <DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org>
 <52439CE1-0431-48F3-BD90-B9A24F7B4C3D@gmail.com>
 <B9D9F9BA-855A-4625-9B60-F9138DD0BFDD@hserus.net>
 <56265B5D.3040105@cis-india.org>
 <4D7F85F5-BB0E-4C35-A3F3-CFC9F7EEAA8A@hserus.net>
 <CAMz5XN5cKa3-za+dOCLBsrWO9PZ3pfs29FOXj9RVwp=ZCb_KQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <657E57DD-D217-4C31-A14D-EFA02C7E79D5@hserus.net>
 <CAJkfFByNDomzqfehAUSbjbkNdL8VHxvUuY3E6RREJ4nDGSrMVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A2A2DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

FYI

https://openmedia.ca/blog/why-internet-users-should-be-very-angry-about-tpp

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 isolatednet at gmail.com  Tue Oct 20 16:58:08 2015
From: isolatednet at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:58:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFByNDomzqfehAUSbjbkNdL8VHxvUuY3E6RREJ4nDGSrMVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
	<DM3PR07MB226531817E5F929FD7F060FDAC390@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAOr9JxnVYBsC==QYMKXsYvSzL646tFM_mYc=dUA=dDGdRvzj_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<D055C67B-2339-4AE0-8F1F-C55D00F720F3@cis-india.org>
	<52439CE1-0431-48F3-BD90-B9A24F7B4C3D@gmail.com>
	<B9D9F9BA-855A-4625-9B60-F9138DD0BFDD@hserus.net>
	<56265B5D.3040105@cis-india.org>
	<4D7F85F5-BB0E-4C35-A3F3-CFC9F7EEAA8A@hserus.net>
	<CAMz5XN5cKa3-za+dOCLBsrWO9PZ3pfs29FOXj9RVwp=ZCb_KQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<657E57DD-D217-4C31-A14D-EFA02C7E79D5@hserus.net>
	<CAJkfFByNDomzqfehAUSbjbkNdL8VHxvUuY3E6RREJ4nDGSrMVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0EM6ozc3NHCNUYZNtG7BJY+2enW93PjE8jjydWCofB4+g@mail.gmail.com>

The multistakeholder process does not lay emphasis on protocols so I wrote
as a participant of ICANN to the Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, (to
reach whom it would have taken several impossible layers in the
multilateral process) and he responded almost immediately to clarify as
follows:

The Obama Administration supports the multistage holder process.  My
response at the NCUC was meant to indicate that our Congress has made clear
that ICANN must remain incorporated in the United States as a result of the
transition.  Hopefully, this clarifies the discussion this morning.  ---
Lawrence Strickling

In my message to him, I wrote as follows:

Dear Mr Strickling,
> As an ICANN participant, I am somewhat puzzled to observe an email
> exchange http://lists.bestbits.net/arc/bestbits/2015-10/msg00034.html this
> afernoon. This concerns a question raised by one of the participants on
> Jurisdiction, a question in two parts, the first part was to ask if US
> would support a jurisdictional change for ICANN and the second part was
> about US support for the multistakeholder process in case there was a
> jurisdictional change. From what I understand, the answer was No,  which
> was taken as a negative response to the question on US support for the
> multistakeholder process, which has given room for a misunderstanding that
> the United States Government would support the multistakeholder process
> only if ICANN remains within US.
> This could not possibly have been your response, I think that your
> response was possible for the first question, and not to the one that
> followed.   Before stating this in the list, and sharing this opinion with
> other participants, I wish to clarify this from you.
> I believe that US commitment for the multistakeholder process is
> fundamental and unconditional.


What matters is that he did not deny that US commitment for the
multistakeholder process is fundamental and unconditional. Perhaps he did
not answer that part of the question. So there is more excitement on his
response earlier this morning than due.

Sivasubramanian M
Internet Society India Chennai



On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It's more that reaching fairly dependable general conclusions about
> the legislative branch is not too hard these days.
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> > Civil society and multistakeholder groups are rife with some people
> claiming
> > to be spokespersons for everybody under the sun.
> >
> > Government officials are bound by a rather more specific set of rules,
> I’d
> > expect.
> >
> > regards
> > suresh
> >
> > On 20-Oct-2015, at 9:30 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > Dear Suresh,
> > I suspect the authority may be the same as that that allows ICANN to
> speak
> > for "stakeholders across the global Internet community"
> >
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
> > Best wishes
> > Deirdre
> >
> >
> > On 20 October 2015 at 11:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The question here would be how or why he can speak for congress as a
> whole
> >> as opposed to current administration policy.
> >>
> >> --srs
> >>
> >> > On 20-Oct-2015, at 8:48 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 20 October 2015 1:45:07 pm GMT+01:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> >> >> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> >> >> Come on, folks.  Asking a fairly ambiguous question, getting an
> equally
> >> >> ambiguous answer and then making a mountain out of a molehill just to
> >> >> score a point doesn’t sound like a very productive way to go.
> >> >
> >> > Dear Suresh,
> >> > Could you please point out the ambiguity in the questions and suggest
> >> > how we could rephrase it to avoid that ambiguity the next time we ask
> it?
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > The question was:
> >> > The technical stability of the DNS doesn't depend on the jurisdiction
> of
> >> > ICANN.  Will the US Congress support a shift in jurisdiction?  And
> will
> >> > there be a continued support for the multistakeholder model if the
> >> > jurisdiction shifts?
> >> >
> >> > The transcript for the meeting will be provided soon:
> >> > https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/tue-ncuc
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Pranesh
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To 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
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151020/9b4745ff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From chinmayiarun at gmail.com  Wed Oct 21 14:30:16 2015
From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:30:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] Report of WSIS+10 review proceedings in New York
Message-ID: <CACu5V_um3i_gCj9+QQ+CrT+eYjHKX_JuVU1fKsaiZc+GX9sH0Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Here are links to CCG's coverage of the WSIS+10 review in New York. Puneeth
Nagaraj has been attending on our behalf and has shared/ written up the
following:

2nd Preparatory Meeting of WSIS+10 Review: Summary of Day 1
<https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/2nd-preparatory-meeting-of-wsis10-review-summary-of-day-1/>
(Covers
EU, US, G77+China and Latin American & Carribean States)
2nd Preparatory Meeting of WSIS+10 Review: Summary of ICT4D Discussions on
Day 2
<https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/2nd-preparatory-meeting-of-wsis10-review-summary-of-ict4d-discussions-on-day-2/>
(covers
South Africa, the EU and the US)

Indian government's statements
WSIS+10 Zero Draft: Highlights from India’s Statement at the 2nd
Preparatory Meeting
<https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/wsis10-zero-draft-indias-statement-at-the-2nd-preparatory-meeting/>
(part
1 of 2)
India’s Statements on Day 2 of the 2nd Preparatory Meeting of the WSIS
Review
<https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/indias-statements-on-day-2-of-the-2nd-preparatory-meeting-of-the-wsis-review/>
(part
2 of 2)

We hope that this is useful to you and welcome your feedback on how we can
improve our reporting.
Best,
Chinmayi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151021/2eb1e8e0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Wed Oct 21 16:14:17 2015
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:14:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <4D82E5A6-5DA9-48B6-9A35-C9E4EA499F50@gmail.com>

Hi

FWIW I was sitting next to Larry and understood Padmini to be asking whether the US Congress would support ICANN leaving the US.  I believe he did too, and hence his emphatic answer was that no, the Congress has said clearly that it will not support this.  He then noted that some governments have raised the consequent question of jurisdiction over disputes and suggested this is an appropriate matter to get into.  So I was puzzled when I saw your message because he did not say anything about multistakeholder governance, much less whether "US Support for Multistakeholder Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control.”

It may be that we didn’t understand the question correctly and mistakenly focused on the ICANN leaving piece, as she was at the end of a long table. But if her question was exactly as you’re reporting it then his answer was clearly non-responsive, in which case a less inventive interpretation would seem apt.

Best

Bill


> On Oct 20, 2015, at 12:11 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> 
> At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US NTIA was asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress would support the multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction were to shift.
> 
> He said that it wouldn't.
> 
> https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
> 
> -- 
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> https://twitter.com/pranesh
> 


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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Thu Oct 22 10:58:24 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:58:24 -0400
Subject: [governance] [Internet Policy] Report of WSIS+10 review
 proceedings in New York
In-Reply-To: <9469C36F-E6E7-4DEB-8559-82CF73A4837F@isoc.org>
References: <CACu5V_um3i_gCj9+QQ+CrT+eYjHKX_JuVU1fKsaiZc+GX9sH0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9469C36F-E6E7-4DEB-8559-82CF73A4837F@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBz8kkMiQH7LD89b4QU7FuhoTVhhd-uGYj8gT+0TDFPoxA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Robin Wilton <wilton at isoc.org> wrote:
> Hi Chinmayi,
>
> Many thanks to you and Puneeth for these very useful notes.
>
> Looking at the summary of Day 1, what strikes me is the way in which the US,
> EU, China, G77 and LAC all express different perspectives on the role of
> human rights in this process.
> Their positions seem to me (very roughly) to be these:
>
> - EU: human rights are a key driving principle here, alongside
> multi-stakeholder approach and closing the digital divide.


EU is the one that actually has an effective mechanism for fundamental
rights protections in the international arena.


> - China: human rights can/should be separated from WSIS outcomes.
> - G77: human rights need not be treated separately from WSIS outcomes.
> - US: ICTs aren’t the cause of human rights violations.


The US wants the international arena to continue to give them an end
run on fundamental rights.


Seth

> - LAC: ICT needs to be viewed in the context of compliance with
> international law (including human rights).
>
> My interpretation is that each of those positions is the consequence of
> another, unstated goal; I’d be interested to hear whether those unstated
> goals come out more clearly in the course of the week.
>
>
> Best wishes, and thanks again,
>
> Robin
>
> Robin Wilton
> Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy
> Internet Society
>
> email: wilton at isoc.org
> Phone: +44 705 005 2931
> Twitter: @futureidentity
>
> On 21 Oct 2015, at 19:30, Chinmayi Arun <chinmayiarun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Here are links to CCG's coverage of the WSIS+10 review in New York. Puneeth
> Nagaraj has been attending on our behalf and has shared/ written up the
> following:
>
> 2nd Preparatory Meeting of WSIS+10 Review: Summary of Day 1 (Covers EU, US,
> G77+China and Latin American & Carribean States)
> 2nd Preparatory Meeting of WSIS+10 Review: Summary of ICT4D Discussions on
> Day 2 (covers South Africa, the EU and the US)
>
> Indian government's statements
> WSIS+10 Zero Draft: Highlights from India’s Statement at the 2nd Preparatory
> Meeting (part 1 of 2)
> India’s Statements on Day 2 of the 2nd Preparatory Meeting of the WSIS
> Review (part 2 of 2)
>
> We hope that this is useful to you and welcome your feedback on how we can
> improve our reporting.
> Best,
> Chinmayi
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Thu Oct 22 11:01:33 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:01:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] [Internet Policy] Report of WSIS+10 review
 proceedings in New York
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBz8kkMiQH7LD89b4QU7FuhoTVhhd-uGYj8gT+0TDFPoxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACu5V_um3i_gCj9+QQ+CrT+eYjHKX_JuVU1fKsaiZc+GX9sH0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9469C36F-E6E7-4DEB-8559-82CF73A4837F@isoc.org> <CAJkfFBz8kkMiQH7LD89b4QU7FuhoTVhhd-uGYj8gT+0TDFPoxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBx7prns1HZ19txO0Oq_47vnpyzmL909r6-Ax12ZxVh-kw@mail.gmail.com>

Shoot, that'll teach me to watch "Reply-All!"

:-)


Seth

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Robin Wilton <wilton at isoc.org> wrote:
>> Hi Chinmayi,
>>
>> Many thanks to you and Puneeth for these very useful notes.
>>
>> Looking at the summary of Day 1, what strikes me is the way in which the US,
>> EU, China, G77 and LAC all express different perspectives on the role of
>> human rights in this process.
>> Their positions seem to me (very roughly) to be these:
>>
>> - EU: human rights are a key driving principle here, alongside
>> multi-stakeholder approach and closing the digital divide.
>
>
> EU is the one that actually has an effective mechanism for fundamental
> rights protections in the international arena.
>
>
>> - China: human rights can/should be separated from WSIS outcomes.
>> - G77: human rights need not be treated separately from WSIS outcomes.
>> - US: ICTs aren’t the cause of human rights violations.
>
>
> The US wants the international arena to continue to give them an end
> run on fundamental rights.
>
>
> Seth
>
>> - LAC: ICT needs to be viewed in the context of compliance with
>> international law (including human rights).
>>
>> My interpretation is that each of those positions is the consequence of
>> another, unstated goal; I’d be interested to hear whether those unstated
>> goals come out more clearly in the course of the week.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes, and thanks again,
>>
>> Robin
>>
>> Robin Wilton
>> Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy
>> Internet Society
>>
>> email: wilton at isoc.org
>> Phone: +44 705 005 2931
>> Twitter: @futureidentity
>>
>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 19:30, Chinmayi Arun <chinmayiarun at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here are links to CCG's coverage of the WSIS+10 review in New York. Puneeth
>> Nagaraj has been attending on our behalf and has shared/ written up the
>> following:
>>
>> 2nd Preparatory Meeting of WSIS+10 Review: Summary of Day 1 (Covers EU, US,
>> G77+China and Latin American & Carribean States)
>> 2nd Preparatory Meeting of WSIS+10 Review: Summary of ICT4D Discussions on
>> Day 2 (covers South Africa, the EU and the US)
>>
>> Indian government's statements
>> WSIS+10 Zero Draft: Highlights from India’s Statement at the 2nd Preparatory
>> Meeting (part 1 of 2)
>> India’s Statements on Day 2 of the 2nd Preparatory Meeting of the WSIS
>> Review (part 2 of 2)
>>
>> We hope that this is useful to you and welcome your feedback on how we can
>> improve our reporting.
>> Best,
>> Chinmayi
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.

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

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

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

From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Fri Oct 23 22:46:59 2015
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 05:46:59 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF 2015 Brazil Request for Civil society Speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAHwnKeE9qAsAOPmBxzj03j-fD0maVvbK8m_SqR=s6P=E_suCfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHwnKeGyxjBjwyoAt8P2Z8B1wUgaQMfkD=tGxQqXf75nNxPH-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHwnKeFroRzo9OjZEOnG2+CuttkBeKr3jkhrNhr_H=ZXqCzrbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHwnKeHvc1SDOv8WHHit-CmxXx+=sbu36Z1=xcx86qksin13uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHwnKeE9qAsAOPmBxzj03j-fD0maVvbK8m_SqR=s6P=E_suCfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeFvukNc52XSk-cYaWSgvA_O3rCRVueiQJbKQk1Y8NZLDg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,



The IGF Secretariat has requested names of two potential speakers from the
civil society stakeholder group to participate in the opening and closing
ceremonies of the 2015 IGF.

Kindly send your suggestions on the lists by Wednesday Oct 28th so that the
Internet Governance Civil Society Co-ordination Group (CSCG) and the MAG
can organise for onward transmission to the IGF Secretariat.



Regards,

--

Best Regards,

​​Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
Twitter: @ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151024/fce5b519/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 24 08:27:44 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:27:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nomination of speakers for the IGF opening and closing
 ceremonies
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN48RifFQ45z+_HKjVSBMJx_COi-=c9NDy3mn4QKOVkgdA@mail.gmail.com>

The MAG is asking for nominations, by Wednesday 28th, of civil society
speakers, one for the opening and one for the closing ceremony of the IGF.
The nominations will be discussed and submitted by the civil society
coordination group. Please send your nominations, together with a short
statement of the reason for the nomination and an indication of whether or
not the nominees have agreed to be nominated. You may also nominate
yourself. Please do this in the next 48 hours, by 13.00 GMT on Monday, to
allow time for the rest of the process.

Thank you

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/20151024/138d0020/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Oct 24 13:19:35 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 22:49:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>

Going past nominations by names, I would like to speak about the
substance that I want represented in civil society speeches..

This is the 10th anniversary of WSIS which called for a people-centred
and development-oriented information society. Let us examine if we have
a more people-centric Internet today than we had in 2005, and if not so,
what are the reasons, and what should have been done, and needs to be
done, especially from the point of view of governance of the Internet.
Can we agree to this being a key element that we should be focussed on?

The Internet to me is rather less people- centric in its 'design' today
than it was 10 years ago... Of course so many more people use the
Internet today, which is rather obvious for a such a breakthrough
technical advance, but for the present purpose lets keep the focus on
its design; is it more people-centric today than it was 10 years ago,
and if it is not, does this not point to a failure of its governance (or
non-governance) model or paradigm. (No, I am *not* talking about the
techno- management of the Internet, or of ICANN, which is a very small
and relatively quite an insignificant part of IG, although there are
also so many problems in that part of IG.)

Although the Internet has so many different angles, aspects and
features, to assess whether we have a more or less people-centred
internet, with more or less concentration of power on it, lets just take
two paradigmatic cases;

(1) Email was still the major p2p Internet application in 2005, but
today social media has overtaken it. Email system was based on public
standards written by IETF and other standards organisations, whereby
there were no lock-ins and every email service could interact with all
others based on these public protocols. Compare that with a Facebook or
a Twitter and you will easily see what I am driving at. Yes, such p2p
interactive affordances are quite more complex than an email based
interaction, but then increased complexity is the way technology grows
and it does not mean that public standards in each social media kind,
personal life sharing, or public instant news sharing, are not possible.
They are very much possible. Just that in those early times the
commercial eagles did not have such an evil eye on the basic platforms
of the Internet, but today the latter have been shaped into the key
means for constructing huge economic advantage through rent seeking by
monopolising each 'field'.  (The open email system is also being eaten
up by Google through various kinds of lock-in and other surreptitious
methods.)

(2) In 2005, Web was the unchallenged king on the Internet, today
proprietary apps are increasingly taking its place. Again, I am not
saying that we should not move to more specialised uses of the
Internet;s basic platform, if that is what is more advantageous to us.
However, the more public nature of the web and the largely  proprietary
nature of app and the ecosystem in which they thrive today tells an
interesting tale, on which I would not expand at this point.

As I said, there are just two illustrative examples out of the many ways
in which the Internet is becoming more and more controlled by few
economic actors, which, I would suggest, correspondingly reduces its
people-centric nature. {There is a similar analysis to be made about how
governments have sought to increase their control over the Internet. I
am admittedly stressing one side of the problem, which in my view is
hugely understated in current civil society discourses.)

The next point then is, does such a very significant reduction of
people- centric nature of the Internet, and a hugely increased
concentration of power on it (and the correspondingly distorted 'design'
of it, which is determined by its 'governance'), not speak of a failed
model of governance (or non-governance, as I must always add). If so,
what is our analysis of this failure of IG in the decade post WSIS, and
of what should have been done, and what should be done now.

I think there is a limit to which we can simply keep extolling the great
wonder that the IGF is - we must explain what inter alia has it really
contributed, or failed to contribute, to the mentioned very problematic
development, which have been taking place under its watch, and the watch
of a veritable travelling circus that the global IG scene has become.
Even I, who is trying to cut down my engagements with it, find it almost
embarrassing to be meeting the same set of people (quite friendly though
we are) several times in a year. How does all this square up with a
rapidly increasing concentration of power on the Internet. If may also
not be a mere coincidence that the last decade of the Internet induced
social changes is also the period over which we witnessed one of the
greatest concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands!

In this background, ones heart cringes to witness, as I had to witness
last week in New York, how the UN's WSIS + 10 review process is behaving
as if there is just nothing wrong with the Internet, and the manner in
which it is effecting large-scale structural changes in the world, in
almost all sectors. There was practically no mention at all of the
numerous issues in this regard that we read almost daily in the
newspapers (Volkswagen's software cheating, John Deere claiming that its
tractors are in fact software with mechanical parts, and so on. To
mention just two news that I read over the last 2-3 weeks alone. The
list in fact is unending). There was no political energy at all in the
room (at WSIS review), and everyone seemed wanting the proceedings to
end quickly so that they could leave. This is quite in contrast to the
politically charged discussions during the original WSIS... What has
happened in the meanwhile? What is happening to governance of the
Internet? We must remember that those who, during the WSIS + 1 process,
were needed to make the case for problematic features of global IG today
were unable to do so also largely because those who are supposed to
produce ideas and do advocacy in this regard, especially as representing
those who are most marginalised,  have failed to do so. I mean the civil
society and the academia.
,
I will like to vote for such a person to speak as a civil society rep -
speaking for the interests of those who are marginalised worldwide - who
can bring these critical questions to the table. Someone who can bell
the global IG cat, and tell the world that global IG is not working, and
the Internet is today largely controlled by big business and people are
simply its consumers and clients, and not the owners, which was what a
people centric information society and people centric Internet was meant
to be...

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 nashton at consensus.pro  Sat Oct 24 13:32:47 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 19:32:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C247566E-1A73-4BBA-8A8A-8A987CDE877E@consensus.pro>

Dear Parminder,

I was really struck by this comment of yours. I don’t think there’s a lot of appetite for this review in NY, and while there are many reasons why, we are where we are.

The likelihood is that the structure of WSIS in its second decennial will probably be much like it has been in the first. Whether that is good or bad is a separate question - perhaps a little of both. It seems to me likely that the real opportunity to marshal ICT4d for development may move to the Technology Facilitation Mechanism in the SDGs - depending upon what is done with it.

Regards, Nick

> On 24 Oct 2015, at 19:19, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> There was no political energy at all in the
> room (at WSIS review), and everyone seemed wanting the proceedings to
> end quickly so that they could leave.

-------------- 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/20151024/a7fb22c6/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 director at ipop.org.pk  Sat Oct 24 14:56:36 2015
From: director at ipop.org.pk (Arzak Khan)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 18:56:36 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl>,<562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BLU180-W71B3ECA4B2C8EE9EF562C9FF250@phx.gbl>




Parminder historically the structure of the imperialist
system has rested on three key and complementary pillars that have allowed
monopoly capitalists to retain and enhance control over raw materials, labor and
services. The retreat/decline in Keynesian strategies in most of Global South
either by design or our incompetency has slowly filled up by a neoliberal
development paradigm that brings to the forefront the nonprofit complex an
integral component and driving force of today’s imperialism. The expansion of
the nonprofit-corporate complex has created a new class of professionals, who are
more inclined to serve the status quo, rather than working for social change. It
has also forced the nonprofit to become more accountable to funders/donors
rather than to our communities. Take a look around and you will see that many
of the nonprofit are forced to become surrogates to their donors, those
involved in the internet governance landscape are no different. 


The one government plus private sector and cherry picked nonprofit
led Internet governance model will not change anything at least for the
marginalised in Global South unless the concept of public interest can be
introduced to override the sectoral interest of certain stakeholders in the
internet governance model.  Best, Arzak 


 


 
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 22:49:35 +0530
From: parminder at itforchange.net
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
CC: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening speakers

Going past nominations by names, I would like to speak about the
substance that I want represented in civil society speeches..
 
This is the 10th anniversary of WSIS which called for a people-centred
and development-oriented information society. Let us examine if we have
a more people-centric Internet today than we had in 2005, and if not so,
what are the reasons, and what should have been done, and needs to be
done, especially from the point of view of governance of the Internet.
Can we agree to this being a key element that we should be focussed on?
 
The Internet to me is rather less people- centric in its 'design' today
than it was 10 years ago... Of course so many more people use the
Internet today, which is rather obvious for a such a breakthrough
technical advance, but for the present purpose lets keep the focus on
its design; is it more people-centric today than it was 10 years ago,
and if it is not, does this not point to a failure of its governance (or
non-governance) model or paradigm. (No, I am *not* talking about the
techno- management of the Internet, or of ICANN, which is a very small
and relatively quite an insignificant part of IG, although there are
also so many problems in that part of IG.)
 
Although the Internet has so many different angles, aspects and
features, to assess whether we have a more or less people-centred
internet, with more or less concentration of power on it, lets just take
two paradigmatic cases;
 
(1) Email was still the major p2p Internet application in 2005, but
today social media has overtaken it. Email system was based on public
standards written by IETF and other standards organisations, whereby
there were no lock-ins and every email service could interact with all
others based on these public protocols. Compare that with a Facebook or
a Twitter and you will easily see what I am driving at. Yes, such p2p
interactive affordances are quite more complex than an email based
interaction, but then increased complexity is the way technology grows
and it does not mean that public standards in each social media kind,
personal life sharing, or public instant news sharing, are not possible.
They are very much possible. Just that in those early times the
commercial eagles did not have such an evil eye on the basic platforms
of the Internet, but today the latter have been shaped into the key
means for constructing huge economic advantage through rent seeking by
monopolising each 'field'.  (The open email system is also being eaten
up by Google through various kinds of lock-in and other surreptitious
methods.)
 
(2) In 2005, Web was the unchallenged king on the Internet, today
proprietary apps are increasingly taking its place. Again, I am not
saying that we should not move to more specialised uses of the
Internet;s basic platform, if that is what is more advantageous to us.
However, the more public nature of the web and the largely  proprietary
nature of app and the ecosystem in which they thrive today tells an
interesting tale, on which I would not expand at this point.
 
As I said, there are just two illustrative examples out of the many ways
in which the Internet is becoming more and more controlled by few
economic actors, which, I would suggest, correspondingly reduces its
people-centric nature. {There is a similar analysis to be made about how
governments have sought to increase their control over the Internet. I
am admittedly stressing one side of the problem, which in my view is
hugely understated in current civil society discourses.)
 
The next point then is, does such a very significant reduction of
people- centric nature of the Internet, and a hugely increased
concentration of power on it (and the correspondingly distorted 'design'
of it, which is determined by its 'governance'), not speak of a failed
model of governance (or non-governance, as I must always add). If so,
what is our analysis of this failure of IG in the decade post WSIS, and
of what should have been done, and what should be done now.
 
I think there is a limit to which we can simply keep extolling the great
wonder that the IGF is - we must explain what inter alia has it really
contributed, or failed to contribute, to the mentioned very problematic
development, which have been taking place under its watch, and the watch
of a veritable travelling circus that the global IG scene has become.
Even I, who is trying to cut down my engagements with it, find it almost
embarrassing to be meeting the same set of people (quite friendly though
we are) several times in a year. How does all this square up with a
rapidly increasing concentration of power on the Internet. If may also
not be a mere coincidence that the last decade of the Internet induced
social changes is also the period over which we witnessed one of the
greatest concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands!
 
In this background, ones heart cringes to witness, as I had to witness
last week in New York, how the UN's WSIS + 10 review process is behaving
as if there is just nothing wrong with the Internet, and the manner in
which it is effecting large-scale structural changes in the world, in
almost all sectors. There was practically no mention at all of the
numerous issues in this regard that we read almost daily in the
newspapers (Volkswagen's software cheating, John Deere claiming that its
tractors are in fact software with mechanical parts, and so on. To
mention just two news that I read over the last 2-3 weeks alone. The
list in fact is unending). There was no political energy at all in the
room (at WSIS review), and everyone seemed wanting the proceedings to
end quickly so that they could leave. This is quite in contrast to the
politically charged discussions during the original WSIS... What has
happened in the meanwhile? What is happening to governance of the
Internet? We must remember that those who, during the WSIS + 1 process,
were needed to make the case for problematic features of global IG today
were unable to do so also largely because those who are supposed to
produce ideas and do advocacy in this regard, especially as representing
those who are most marginalised,  have failed to do so. I mean the civil
society and the academia.
,
I will like to vote for such a person to speak as a civil society rep -
speaking for the interests of those who are marginalised worldwide - who
can bring these critical questions to the table. Someone who can bell
the global IG cat, and tell the world that global IG is not working, and
the Internet is today largely controlled by big business and people are
simply its consumers and clients, and not the owners, which was what a
people centric information society and people centric Internet was meant
to be...
 
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/20151024/48b2e62b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 25 11:09:28 2015
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 13:09:28 -0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <F64BCDF3-D17F-41BA-B905-670FF319FE8A@gmail.com>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org>
 <CAOr9Jxnc78wFN3Xig2jg5P0C86=j0KqgiLo_kXRCrOsE=unHBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F64BCDF3-D17F-41BA-B905-670FF319FE8A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <562CF0A8.3020808@cafonso.ca>

Trying is one thing... Getting there is another.

--c.a.

On 10/20/15 09:24, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote:
> It sounds like Larry was giving an assessment of the current Congress.
> That is not necessarily the only path forward for the Obama
> Administration, they could try to move forward without Congressional
> support.
> 
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com
> <mailto:pdmnbaruah at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Adding to that, he also said that the issue of jurisdiction doesn't
>> relate to the physical presence of ICANN  as much as the jurisdiction
>> of dispute resolution mechanisms, and to not focus on the former which
>> is not as relevant.
>> Basically, no move in jurisdiction will ever be supported.
>>
>> On 20 Oct 2015 16:43, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org
>> <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US
>>     NTIA was asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress
>>     would support the multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction
>>     were to shift.
>>
>>     He said that it wouldn't.
>>
>>     https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Pranesh Prakash
>>     Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>>     http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283>
>>     sip:pranesh at ostel.co <mailto:sip%3Apranesh at ostel.co> |
>>     xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:xmpp%3Apranesh at cis-india.org>
>>     https://twitter.com/pranesh
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     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:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
CGI.br - http://cgi.br

GPG 0x9EE8F8E3
Fingerprint EB2C 8F4B 1C68 8BB7 B6EC 9413 1FE5 1BB0 9EE8 F8E3

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

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

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

From cveraq at gmail.com  Sun Oct 25 11:14:00 2015
From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 10:14:00 -0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] US Support for Multistakeholder
 Governance is Conditional on US Remaining in Control
In-Reply-To: <562CF0A8.3020808@cafonso.ca>
References: <56262147.7030507@cis-india.org> <CAOr9Jxnc78wFN3Xig2jg5P0C86=j0KqgiLo_kXRCrOsE=unHBA@mail.gmail.com> <F64BCDF3-D17F-41BA-B905-670FF319FE8A@gmail.com> <562CF0A8.3020808@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <DFAD1172-0EDD-4A9C-9F2A-9E5ADB066ED5@gmail.com>

It makes sense to give "diplomatic status" to the Internet.. 

Carlos Vera Quintana
0988141143
Sígueme @cveraq

> El 25 oct 2015, a las 10:09 a.m., Carlos Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> escribió:
> 
> Trying is one thing... Getting there is another.
> 
> --c.a.
> 
>> On 10/20/15 09:24, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote:
>> It sounds like Larry was giving an assessment of the current Congress.
>> That is not necessarily the only path forward for the Obama
>> Administration, they could try to move forward without Congressional
>> support.
>> 
>> On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com
>> <mailto:pdmnbaruah at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Adding to that, he also said that the issue of jurisdiction doesn't
>>> relate to the physical presence of ICANN  as much as the jurisdiction
>>> of dispute resolution mechanisms, and to not focus on the former which
>>> is not as relevant.
>>> Basically, no move in jurisdiction will ever be supported.
>>> 
>>> On 20 Oct 2015 16:43, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org
>>> <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    At a meeting with civil society actors, Larry Strickling of the US
>>>    NTIA was asked by my colleague Padmini whether the US Congress
>>>    would support the multistakeholder model if ICANN's jurisdiction
>>>    were to shift.
>>> 
>>>    He said that it wouldn't.
>>> 
>>>    https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/656422297876561921
>>> 
>>>    -- 
>>>    Pranesh Prakash
>>>    Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>>>    http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283>
>>>    sip:pranesh at ostel.co <mailto:sip%3Apranesh at ostel.co> |
>>>    xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:xmpp%3Apranesh at cis-india.org>
>>>    https://twitter.com/pranesh
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>    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:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> -- 
> 
> Carlos A. Afonso
> Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
> CGI.br - http://cgi.br
> 
> GPG 0x9EE8F8E3
> Fingerprint EB2C 8F4B 1C68 8BB7 B6EC 9413 1FE5 1BB0 9EE8 F8E3
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 milton at gatech.edu  Sun Oct 25 16:32:40 2015
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:32:40 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl>
 <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> This is the 10th anniversary of WSIS which called for a people-centred and
> development-oriented information society. Let us examine if we have a more
> people-centric Internet today than we had in 2005, and if not so, what are the
> reasons, and what should have been done, and needs to be done, especially
> from the point of view of governance of the Internet.
> Can we agree to this being a key element that we should be focussed on?

No. 

Can you provide me with a metric of "people-centeredness"? One that is meaningful to all and not a purely ideological construct? The examples you gave below were not encouraging. 

> The Internet to me is rather less people- centric in its 'design' today than it
> was 10 years ago... Of course so many more people use the Internet today,
> which is rather obvious for a such a breakthrough technical advance, but for

So the people who are adopting and using the Internet don't count in your calculation. Interesting. The choices people make to adopt, say, Facebook in huge and growing numbers, does not mean that they see value in this in your book. What then does it mean? 

> the present purpose lets keep the focus on its design; is it more people-centric
> today than it was 10 years ago

I have no idea what you mean by the 'design' of the Internet. If you are not talking about techno-management, and you are not talking about the design of the standards and protocols, from your examples below it sounds like you are talking about the economic organization or business models of service providers who run "over the top." 

> (1) Email was still the major p2p Internet application in 2005

Sigh. Email as P2P. Can someone other than me explain what's wrong with this assertion to P? I don't have time.

> media has overtaken it. Email system was based on public standards written
> by IETF and other standards organisations, whereby there were no lock-ins
> and every email service could interact with all others based on these public
> protocols. 

Every email service can still interact with all others, and so can all the platforms.

I don't think you have a very accurate recollection or a very deep understanding of the compatibility issues here. What was your email client in 2005? Or 1995 for that matter? Mine was MS Outlook in 2005 and Netscape's browser in 1995. Have you tried moving your stored emails from either client to any other one? It was more difficult in 1995 than in 2005, and more difficult in 2005 than now. True, email standards interconnect all different clients then as now but there were various lock-in mechanisms. There is always a dynamic between competition, innovation and standardization, between open and proprietary, and you haven't made much of a case that we are tilting more one way than the other. 

> Compare that with a Facebook or a Twitter and you will easily see
> what I am driving at. 

Sorry, I still don't see what you are driving at. I can see anyone's Tweet on the web, they can email me a link to it. Facebook seems to be a bit more closed off, (I am not a Facebook user (yeah, we do exist), so I am less sure of how users allow or do not allow access to their pages), but there were equivalent platforms in 2005. Since these blockages are a result of user choice, how is this a less "people-centered" internet? 

> (2) In 2005, Web was the unchallenged king on the Internet, today proprietary
> apps are increasingly taking its place. Again, I am not saying that we should

Wrong. Most "proprietary" apps are free, and they link to and complement the web, they do not substitute for it. Furthermore, tons of web sites had (and still have) paywalls or login requirements in 2005.  

> I think there is a limit to which we can simply keep extolling the great wonder
> that the IGF is - we must explain what inter alia has it really contributed, or
> failed to contribute, to the mentioned very problematic development, which
> have been taking place under its watch, and the watch of a veritable travelling
> circus that the global IG scene has become.

Even though I largely agree with the implied criticism of the IGF, and 100% agree that we must always ask what it has contributed, I think when you say the Internet has developed in the way it has "under its watch" you are exaggerating the significance of what the IGF is or could be. The Internet, like the overall economy, is not a centralized system under any single authority's "watch."

> In this background, ones heart cringes to witness, as I had to witness last week
> in New York, how the UN's WSIS + 10 review process is behaving as if there is
> just nothing wrong with the Internet, and the manner in which it is effecting
> large-scale structural changes in the world, in almost all sectors. There was
> practically no mention at all of the numerous issues in this regard that we
> read almost daily in the newspapers (Volkswagen's software cheating, John
> Deere claiming that its tractors are in fact software with mechanical parts,
> and so on. To mention just two news that I read over the last 2-3 weeks alone.
> The list in fact is unending).

These are interesting developments in IT, but have no connection whatsoever to Internet governance.

> There was no political energy at all in the room (at
> WSIS review), and everyone seemed wanting the proceedings to end quickly
> so that they could leave. This is quite in contrast to the politically charged
> discussions during the original WSIS... What has happened in the meanwhile?

Interesting question. Worth discussing. I have my ideas about that, but you probably would not like them.

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Oct 25 16:44:01 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 02:14:01 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <D4DFA110-7CED-440E-A200-22C389C9EF05@hserus.net>

I’ll just applaud, once I finish laughing at the neat set of questions you asked him here.

—srs

> On 26-Oct-2015, at 2:02 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> This is the 10th anniversary of WSIS which called for a people-centred and
>> development-oriented information society. Let us examine if we have a more
>> people-centric Internet today than we had in 2005, and if not so, what are the
>> reasons, and what should have been done, and needs to be done, especially
>> from the point of view of governance of the Internet.
>> Can we agree to this being a key element that we should be focussed on?
> 
> No. 
> 
> Can you provide me with a metric of "people-centeredness"? One that is meaningful to all and not a purely ideological construct? The examples you gave below were not encouraging. 
> 
>> The Internet to me is rather less people- centric in its 'design' today than it
>> was 10 years ago... Of course so many more people use the Internet today,
>> which is rather obvious for a such a breakthrough technical advance, but for
> 
> So the people who are adopting and using the Internet don't count in your calculation. Interesting. The choices people make to adopt, say, Facebook in huge and growing numbers, does not mean that they see value in this in your book. What then does it mean? 
> 
>> the present purpose lets keep the focus on its design; is it more people-centric
>> today than it was 10 years ago
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by the 'design' of the Internet. If you are not talking about techno-management, and you are not talking about the design of the standards and protocols, from your examples below it sounds like you are talking about the economic organization or business models of service providers who run "over the top." 
> 
>> (1) Email was still the major p2p Internet application in 2005
> 
> Sigh. Email as P2P. Can someone other than me explain what's wrong with this assertion to P? I don't have time.
> 
>> media has overtaken it. Email system was based on public standards written
>> by IETF and other standards organisations, whereby there were no lock-ins
>> and every email service could interact with all others based on these public
>> protocols. 
> 
> Every email service can still interact with all others, and so can all the platforms.
> 
> I don't think you have a very accurate recollection or a very deep understanding of the compatibility issues here. What was your email client in 2005? Or 1995 for that matter? Mine was MS Outlook in 2005 and Netscape's browser in 1995. Have you tried moving your stored emails from either client to any other one? It was more difficult in 1995 than in 2005, and more difficult in 2005 than now. True, email standards interconnect all different clients then as now but there were various lock-in mechanisms. There is always a dynamic between competition, innovation and standardization, between open and proprietary, and you haven't made much of a case that we are tilting more one way than the other. 
> 
>> Compare that with a Facebook or a Twitter and you will easily see
>> what I am driving at. 
> 
> Sorry, I still don't see what you are driving at. I can see anyone's Tweet on the web, they can email me a link to it. Facebook seems to be a bit more closed off, (I am not a Facebook user (yeah, we do exist), so I am less sure of how users allow or do not allow access to their pages), but there were equivalent platforms in 2005. Since these blockages are a result of user choice, how is this a less "people-centered" internet? 
> 
>> (2) In 2005, Web was the unchallenged king on the Internet, today proprietary
>> apps are increasingly taking its place. Again, I am not saying that we should
> 
> Wrong. Most "proprietary" apps are free, and they link to and complement the web, they do not substitute for it. Furthermore, tons of web sites had (and still have) paywalls or login requirements in 2005.  
> 
>> I think there is a limit to which we can simply keep extolling the great wonder
>> that the IGF is - we must explain what inter alia has it really contributed, or
>> failed to contribute, to the mentioned very problematic development, which
>> have been taking place under its watch, and the watch of a veritable travelling
>> circus that the global IG scene has become.
> 
> Even though I largely agree with the implied criticism of the IGF, and 100% agree that we must always ask what it has contributed, I think when you say the Internet has developed in the way it has "under its watch" you are exaggerating the significance of what the IGF is or could be. The Internet, like the overall economy, is not a centralized system under any single authority's "watch."
> 
>> In this background, ones heart cringes to witness, as I had to witness last week
>> in New York, how the UN's WSIS + 10 review process is behaving as if there is
>> just nothing wrong with the Internet, and the manner in which it is effecting
>> large-scale structural changes in the world, in almost all sectors. There was
>> practically no mention at all of the numerous issues in this regard that we
>> read almost daily in the newspapers (Volkswagen's software cheating, John
>> Deere claiming that its tractors are in fact software with mechanical parts,
>> and so on. To mention just two news that I read over the last 2-3 weeks alone.
>> The list in fact is unending).
> 
> These are interesting developments in IT, but have no connection whatsoever to Internet governance.
> 
>> There was no political energy at all in the room (at
>> WSIS review), and everyone seemed wanting the proceedings to end quickly
>> so that they could leave. This is quite in contrast to the politically charged
>> discussions during the original WSIS... What has happened in the meanwhile?
> 
> Interesting question. Worth discussing. I have my ideas about that, but you probably would not like them.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 javierjosepallero at gmail.com  Mon Oct 26 09:54:05 2015
From: javierjosepallero at gmail.com (Javier Pallero)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:54:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGF 2015 Brazil Request for Civil society Speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAHwnKeFvukNc52XSk-cYaWSgvA_O3rCRVueiQJbKQk1Y8NZLDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHwnKeGyxjBjwyoAt8P2Z8B1wUgaQMfkD=tGxQqXf75nNxPH-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHwnKeFroRzo9OjZEOnG2+CuttkBeKr3jkhrNhr_H=ZXqCzrbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHwnKeHvc1SDOv8WHHit-CmxXx+=sbu36Z1=xcx86qksin13uA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHwnKeE9qAsAOPmBxzj03j-fD0maVvbK8m_SqR=s6P=E_suCfg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHwnKeFvukNc52XSk-cYaWSgvA_O3rCRVueiQJbKQk1Y8NZLDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMRB7nfMYdeD1-vLczzVSH=ATjKVjqJ5pj=yUqDPcF_=Sx-Akw@mail.gmail.com>

Should we send suggestions to this list? In that case, I'd suggest Josh
Levy, Global Advocacy Director in Access Now.

Thanks,

*Javier Pallero*

http://about.me/javierpallero

PGP 0xC89034BC
Fingerprint 105E 3F73 CE73 C78A B3C3 9255 528C E57D C890 34BC

2015-10-23 23:46 GMT-03:00 Ephraim Percy Kenyanito <ekenyanito at gmail.com>:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The IGF Secretariat has requested names of two potential speakers from the
> civil society stakeholder group to participate in the opening and closing
> ceremonies of the 2015 IGF.
>
> Kindly send your suggestions on the lists by Wednesday Oct 28th so that
> the Internet Governance Civil Society Co-ordination Group (CSCG) and the
> MAG can organise for onward transmission to the IGF Secretariat.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
>
> Best Regards,
>
> ​​Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
> Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
> Twitter: @ekenyanito
> PGP: E6BA8DC1
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151026/32cba686/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From director at ipop.org.pk  Mon Oct 26 13:42:55 2015
From: director at ipop.org.pk (Arzak Khan)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:42:55 +0000
Subject: [governance] Support iPOP Tactical Operations in Pakistan
 Earthquake
Message-ID: <BLU180-W443285B1D434B0B77B4C9FFF230@phx.gbl>

Dear All, 
 
A major earthquake measuring 8.1 on Richter scale has struck remote northeast region  in Afghanistan and northern areas of Pakistan killing more than 200 people and injuring more than 1500. The death toll could rise in coming days because communication system is mostly disrupted in the rugged Hindu Kush mountain range where the quake was centered. 
 
The tactical operations (TOPS) team at Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan is closely monitoring the situation in coordination with disaster management authorities and humanitarian organizations before field deployment of TOPS A-Team. 
 
If you would like to support us or have suggestions based on your own experiences please do get in touch. 
 
You can read more about how we conduct our tactical operations here http://ipop.org.pk/initiatives/tops/
 
Best,
 
Arzak Khan |Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan |www.ipop.org.pk | Facebook.com/ipopak | 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151026/f58eefb6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EARTHQUAKEE2.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 70370 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151026/f58eefb6/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: HUNZA.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 109035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151026/f58eefb6/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: LOWERDIR.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 94442 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151026/f58eefb6/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pakistanquake.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 365145 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151026/f58eefb6/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: peshawar.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 105568 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151026/f58eefb6/attachment-0004.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 javierjosepallero at gmail.com  Mon Oct 26 14:38:21 2015
From: javierjosepallero at gmail.com (Javier Pallero)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:38:21 -0300
Subject: [governance] INVITATION: Zero Rating event at the IGF
Message-ID: <CAMRB7ncZX3k8RKy+5P7CkTo7MPREcFRkNsPwD86oDZ-kQTsMVw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Access Now would like to invite all civil society members attending the IGF
to a day-long event on zero rating on *November 9*. There will be an
open-door session on zero rating research in the morning and a closed-door
strategic gathering for civil society members in the afternoon.

Morning session

The morning session will gather a small group of companies and researchers
to conduct a "show and tell" of zero rating products and research. This
will be a safe space for established companies, startups, and other
interested parties to show off solutions to closing the global connectivity
gap, and for researchers to present their findings on the effectiveness and
effects of so-called "zero rating" and "equal rating" strategies.

This open-door session will include 20-minute presentations on the various
partnerships, technologies, business strategies, and other approaches being
employed by companies and researchers. All presenters should come prepared
to present products or findings, and to lead a short discussion.

Morning agenda:

9.00 - 9:30 AM: Introductions

9:30 - 11:30 AM: Presentations and discussion

11:30 AM - 12.00 PM: Wrap-up

Afternoon session

In the afternoon, the Brazilian organization PROTESTE will join us in
hosting a meeting with global civil society members attending the IGF to
discuss strategies and perspectives on what’s coming next for the
protection of users’ rights and also introduce a broader talk on zero
rating, Net Neutrality, and the agenda for global connectivity – where the
business sector is starting to play an important role.

The meeting will be held as a closed-door session under Chatham House
rules.

Afternoon agenda:

2.00 - 4.00 PM: Roundtable discussion.

Venue and RSVP

Both meetings will be held in the external auditorium of the IGF venue
–Poeta Ronaldo Cunha Lima Conference Center–.

*Please, RSVP by responding to this e-mail if you are interested in
attending any of the events or both.*

Best regards,

Josh Levy - Advocacy Director / Access Now

Javier Pallero - Policy Analyst / Access Now


*Javier Pallero*

http://about.me/javierpallero

PGP 0xC89034BC
Fingerprint 105E 3F73 CE73 C78A B3C3 9255 528C E57D C890 34BC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151026/cb708bfe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 26 16:28:47 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:28:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] Support iPOP Tactical Operations in Pakistan
 Earthquake
In-Reply-To: <BLU180-W443285B1D434B0B77B4C9FFF230@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU180-W443285B1D434B0B77B4C9FFF230@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <D46A6B90-44DB-4136-B54B-ACD6B8F211B1@consensus.pro>

Dear Arzak,

I have relationships with OCHA and the Emergency Telecommunications Cluster people. If you, other NGOs, and perhaps ISOC Pakistan would be available to liaise with the incoming international organisations let me know offlist, I’d be happy to help connect you, if you don’t already know them.

Regards, Nick

> On 26 Oct 2015, at 18:42, Arzak Khan <director at ipop.org.pk> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> A major earthquake measuring 8.1 on Richter scale has struck remote northeast region  in Afghanistan and northern areas of Pakistan killing more than 200 people and injuring more than 1500. The death toll could rise in coming days because communication system is mostly disrupted in the rugged Hindu Kush mountain range where the quake was centered.
> 
> The tactical operations (TOPS) team at Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan is closely monitoring the situation in coordination with disaster management authorities and humanitarian organizations before field deployment of TOPS A-Team.
> 
> If you would like to support us or have suggestions based on your own experiences please do get in touch.
> 
> You can read more about how we conduct our tactical operations here http://ipop.org.pk/initiatives/tops/ <http://ipop.org.pk/initiatives/tops/>
> 
> Best,
> 
> Arzak Khan |Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan |www.ipop.org.pk <http://www.ipop.org.pk/> | Facebook.com/ipopak <http://facebook.com/ipopak> |
> <EARTHQUAKEE2.jpg><HUNZA.jpg><LOWERDIR.jpg><pakistanquake.jpg><peshawar.jpg>____________________________________________________________
> 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151026/624b8488/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/20151026/624b8488/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr  Mon Oct 26 17:10:56 2015
From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene Tungali)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:10:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] INVITATION: Zero Rating event at the IGF
Message-ID: <7tuhp80krl9p0ek31akptxua.1445893721684@email.android.com>

This will be an important meeting. I am planing to attend part of it and i encourage everyone who can to be there as well.

-----
Arsene Tungali,
Executive Director, Rudi International.
Founder & Director, Mabingwa Forum.

Mandela Washington Fellow. ICANN Fellow. ISOC IGF Ambassador. Blogger. Child Online Protection. Communications Specialist.

Democratic Republic of Congo.
Sent from Huawei Mobile (excuse typos)

Javier Pallero <javierjosepallero at gmail.com> wrote:

>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To 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/20151026/4e7e540c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Oct 26 18:56:28 2015
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:56:28 +0000
Subject: [governance] Fw: Internet Society announced an event
In-Reply-To: <30066113.20151026212920.562e9b3078fdf1.56165295@mail149.atl41.mandrillapp.com>
References: <30066113.20151026212920.562e9b3078fdf1.56165295@mail149.atl41.mandrillapp.com>
Message-ID: <1445900187938.14715@syr.edu>

FYI,


This ISOC event may be of interest.


Lee

________________________________
From: Livestream <notifications at livestream.com>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 5:29 PM
To: Lee W McKnight
Subject: Internet Society announced an event



[http://cdn.livestream.com/email/notifications/notification-logo.jpg]<http://livestream.com/>

Lee Warren McKnight,
Internet Society<http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email> has invited you to watch their next live event: Platform Cooperativism<http://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformcoop?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>

[Platform Cooperativism] <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformcoop?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>
Nov 13th
        Platform Cooperativism<http://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformcoop?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>

Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 9:00 AM EST on internetsociety<http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>

On November 13 and 14, the New School in New York City will host a coming-out party for the cooperative Internet, built of platforms owned and governed by the people who rely on them. The program will include discussion sessions, screenings, monologues, legal hacks, workshops, and dialogues, as well as a showcase of projects, both conceptual and actual, under the purview of celebrity judges. We'll learn from coders and worker cooperatives, scholars and designers. Together, we'll put their les...

View Event<http://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformcoop?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>


Set your notifications<http://livestream.com/my_account/notification/edit> for us to email or text you when the event begins, or add the event to your calendar:

[http://cdn.livestream.com/email/newbeta/addtocalendar-ical.png]<http://livestream.com/accounts/686369/events/4438747/calender>[http://cdn.livestream.com/email/newbeta/addtocalendar-gcal.png]<https://www.google.com/calendar/render?action=TEMPLATE&text=Platform+Cooperativism%20on%20Livestream.com&dates=20151113T140000Z/20151114T220000Z&details=On+November+13+and+14%2C+the+New+School+in+New+York+City+will+host+a+coming-out+party+for+the+cooperative+Internet%2C+built+of+platforms+owned+and+governed+by+the+people+who+rely+on+them.+The+program+will+include+discussion+sessions%2C+screenings%2C+monologues%2C+legal+hacks%2C+workshops%2C+and+dialogues%2C+as+well+as+a+showcase+of+projects%2C+both+conceptual+and+actual%2C+under+the+purview+of+celebrity+judges.+We%E2%80%99ll+learn+from+coders+and+worker+cooperatives%2C+scholars+and+designers.+Together%2C+we%E2%80%99ll+put+their+lessons+to+work+as+we+work+toward+usable+apps+and+structural+economic+change.+This+is+your+chance+to+get+on+the+ground+floor+of+the+next+Internet%2C+and+to+help+make+it+a+reality.&location=http://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformcoop?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email&trp=false&sprop=www.livestream.com&sprop=name:www.livestream.com&pli=1&sf=true&output=xml>[http://cdn.livestream.com/email/newbeta/addtocalendar-outlook.png]<http://livestream.com/accounts/686369/events/4438747/calender>

You are receiving this notification because you follow Internet Society<http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>. To stop receiving notifications like these you can unfollow this account<https://livestream.com/accounts/4269523/unfollow/686369/e2da1a?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>.


[http://img.new.livestream.com/accounts/00000000000a7921/793f47db-d523-4d02-85ca-3a0ab8223644_170x170.png]<http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>
Internet Society<http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>

The Internet Society is an independent international nonprofit organisation founded in 1992 to provide leadership in Internet related standards, education, and policy around the world.

View Profile<http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>



  *   Livestream<http://livestream.com/livestream>  ·
  *   Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/livestream>  ·
  *   Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/livestream>  ·
  *   Help<http://help.livestream.com/>

This message was sent to lmcknigh at syr.edu

Not interested in this email? Visit your account settings<http://livestream.com/my_account/notification/edit> to control which notifications you receive from Livestream or unsubscribe here<https://livestream.com/unsubscribe/4269523/c203ea/event_published>.

Livestream, Inc. 195 Morgan Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11237





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151026/c8597f3d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 26 21:52:04 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:52:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF 2015 Brazil Request for Civil society Speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAMRB7nfMYdeD1-vLczzVSH=ATjKVjqJ5pj=yUqDPcF_=Sx-Akw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHwnKeGyxjBjwyoAt8P2Z8B1wUgaQMfkD=tGxQqXf75nNxPH-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHwnKeFroRzo9OjZEOnG2+CuttkBeKr3jkhrNhr_H=ZXqCzrbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHwnKeHvc1SDOv8WHHit-CmxXx+=sbu36Z1=xcx86qksin13uA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHwnKeE9qAsAOPmBxzj03j-fD0maVvbK8m_SqR=s6P=E_suCfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHwnKeFvukNc52XSk-cYaWSgvA_O3rCRVueiQJbKQk1Y8NZLDg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRB7nfMYdeD1-vLczzVSH=ATjKVjqJ5pj=yUqDPcF_=Sx-Akw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7NFCpR-2z0dkwMKrjR3o1rEa2vyohAFC3Zc2+bxu2Q3A@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Javier and yes. The IGC is one of the members of the Civil
Society Coordination Group (CSCG). The original deadline today has now
passed, but its intention was to allow list members time to review the
suggestions being made. We have until Wednesday, so there is still time.
Please include a brief reason for making the particular nomination, whether
the nominee is yourself or someone else.
Thank you
Deirdre

On 26 October 2015 at 09:54, Javier Pallero <javierjosepallero at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Should we send suggestions to this list? In that case, I'd suggest Josh
> Levy, Global Advocacy Director in Access Now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> *Javier Pallero*
>
> http://about.me/javierpallero
>
> PGP 0xC89034BC
> Fingerprint 105E 3F73 CE73 C78A B3C3 9255 528C E57D C890 34BC
>
> 2015-10-23 23:46 GMT-03:00 Ephraim Percy Kenyanito <ekenyanito at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> The IGF Secretariat has requested names of two potential speakers from
>> the civil society stakeholder group to participate in the opening and
>> closing ceremonies of the 2015 IGF.
>>
>> Kindly send your suggestions on the lists by Wednesday Oct 28th so that
>> the Internet Governance Civil Society Co-ordination Group (CSCG) and the
>> MAG can organise for onward transmission to the IGF Secretariat.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> ​​Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>> Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
>> Twitter: @ekenyanito
>> PGP: E6BA8DC1
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151026/08ec1707/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 26 22:54:23 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:54:23 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fw: Internet Society announced an event
In-Reply-To: <1445900187938.14715@syr.edu>
References: <30066113.20151026212920.562e9b3078fdf1.56165295@mail149.atl41.mandrillapp.com>
 <1445900187938.14715@syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk03gG-mdHQnO6Dd_heC31ABkMvnNz1BNNxYX9B8wrs_Ow@mail.gmail.com>

To clarify, our contribution is just the streaming.

I did also video an earlier precursor panel -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0VE-Rk7rrA

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> FYI,
>
>
> This ISOC event may be of interest.
>
>
> Lee
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Livestream <notifications at livestream.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 5:29 PM
> *To:* Lee W McKnight
> *Subject:* Internet Society announced an event
>
> <http://livestream.com/> Lee Warren McKnight, Internet Society
> <http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>
> has invited you to watch their next live event: Platform Cooperativism
> <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformcoop?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email> [image:
> Platform Cooperativism]
> Nov 13th
>
> <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformcoop?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email> Platform
> Cooperativism
> <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformcoop?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>
>
> *Friday, November 13th, 2015* at *9:00 AM EST* on internetsociety
> <http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>
>
> On November 13 and 14, the New School in New York City will host a
> coming-out party for the cooperative Internet, built of platforms owned and
> governed by the people who rely on them. The program will include
> discussion sessions, screenings, monologues, legal hacks, workshops, and
> dialogues, as well as a showcase of projects, both conceptual and actual,
> under the purview of celebrity judges. We’ll learn from coders and worker
> cooperatives, scholars and designers. Together, we’ll put their les...
>
> View Event
> <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformcoop?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>
>
> Set your notifications
> <http://livestream.com/my_account/notification/edit> for us to email or
> text you when the event begins, or add the event to your calendar:
> <http://livestream.com/accounts/686369/events/4438747/calender>
> <https://www.google.com/calendar/render?action=TEMPLATE&text=Platform+Cooperativism%20on%20Livestream.com&dates=20151113T140000Z/20151114T220000Z&details=On+November+13+and+14%2C+the+New+School+in+New+York+City+will+host+a+coming-out+party+for+the+cooperative+Internet%2C+built+of+platforms+owned+and+governed+by+the+people+who+rely+on+them.+The+program+will+include+discussion+sessions%2C+screenings%2C+monologues%2C+legal+hacks%2C+workshops%2C+and+dialogues%2C+as+well+as+a+showcase+of+projects%2C+both+conceptual+and+actual%2C+under+the+purview+of+celebrity+judges.+We%E2%80%99ll+learn+from+coders+and+worker+cooperatives%2C+scholars+and+designers.+Together%2C+we%E2%80%99ll+put+their+lessons+to+work+as+we+work+toward+usable+apps+and+structural+economic+change.+This+is+your+chance+to+get+on+the+ground+floor+of+the+next+Internet%2C+and+to+help+make+it+a+reality.&location=http://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformcoop?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email&trp=false&sprop=www.livestream.com&sprop=name:www.livestream.com&pli=1&sf=true&output=xml>
> <http://livestream.com/accounts/686369/events/4438747/calender>
>
> You are receiving this notification because you follow Internet Society
> <http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>.
> To stop receiving notifications like these you can unfollow this account
> <https://livestream.com/accounts/4269523/unfollow/686369/e2da1a?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>
> .
>
> <http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email> Internet
> Society
> <http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>
>
> The Internet Society is an independent international nonprofit
> organisation founded in 1992 to provide leadership in Internet related
> standards, education, and policy around the world.
> View Profile
> <http://livestream.com/internetsociety?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=136bcbdee9b6e-007947519-13134557-1fa400-136bcbdee9c115a&acc_id=4269523&medium=email>
>
>    - Livestream <http://livestream.com/livestream>  ·
>    - Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/livestream>  ·
>    - Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/livestream>  ·
>    - Help <http://help.livestream.com/>
>
> This message was sent to lmcknigh at syr.edu
>
> Not interested in this email? Visit your account settings
> <http://livestream.com/my_account/notification/edit> to control which
> notifications you receive from Livestream or unsubscribe here
> <https://livestream.com/unsubscribe/4269523/c203ea/event_published>.
>
> Livestream, Inc. 195 Morgan Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11237
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151026/3c74aacf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From amritachoudhury at ccaoi.in  Tue Oct 27 02:20:54 2015
From: amritachoudhury at ccaoi.in (Amrita CCAOI)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:50:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] INVITATION: Zero Rating event at the IGF
In-Reply-To: <CAMRB7ncZX3k8RKy+5P7CkTo7MPREcFRkNsPwD86oDZ-kQTsMVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMRB7ncZX3k8RKy+5P7CkTo7MPREcFRkNsPwD86oDZ-kQTsMVw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007f01d1107f$a5053d10$ef0fb730$@in>

Hi,

 

Is there a provision for civil society members to participate remotely?

 

Regards

 

Amrita Choudhury

CCAOI 

www.ccaoi.in

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Javier Pallero
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:08 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] INVITATION: Zero Rating event at the IGF

 

Dear all, 

 

Access Now would like to invite all civil society members attending the IGF to a day-long event on zero rating on November 9. There will be an open-door session on zero rating research in the morning and a closed-door strategic gathering for civil society members in the afternoon.

 

Morning session

The morning session will gather a small group of companies and researchers to conduct a "show and tell" of zero rating products and research. This will be a safe space for established companies, startups, and other interested parties to show off solutions to closing the global connectivity gap, and for researchers to present their findings on the effectiveness and effects of so-called "zero rating" and "equal rating" strategies.

 

This open-door session will include 20-minute presentations on the various partnerships, technologies, business strategies, and other approaches being employed by companies and researchers. All presenters should come prepared to present products or findings, and to lead a short discussion.

 

Morning agenda:

9.00 - 9:30 AM: Introductions

9:30 - 11:30 AM: Presentations and discussion

11:30 AM - 12.00 PM: Wrap-up

 

Afternoon session

In the afternoon, the Brazilian organization PROTESTE will join us in hosting a meeting with global civil society members attending the IGF to discuss strategies and perspectives on what’s coming next for the protection of users’ rights and also introduce a broader talk on zero rating, Net Neutrality, and the agenda for global connectivity – where the business sector is starting to play an important role. 

 

The meeting will be held as a closed-door session under Chatham House rules. 

 

Afternoon agenda: 

2.00 - 4.00 PM: Roundtable discussion.

 

Venue and RSVP

Both meetings will be held in the external auditorium of the IGF venue –Poeta Ronaldo Cunha Lima Conference Center–. 

 

Please, RSVP by responding to this e-mail if you are interested in attending any of the events or both.

 

Best regards,

 

Josh Levy - Advocacy Director / Access Now

Javier Pallero - Policy Analyst / Access Now

 




Javier Pallero

 

http://about.me/javierpallero

PGP 0xC89034BC

Fingerprint 105E 3F73 CE73 C78A B3C3 9255 528C E57D C890 34BC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151027/6d2ceead/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From javierjosepallero at gmail.com  Tue Oct 27 09:06:20 2015
From: javierjosepallero at gmail.com (Javier Pallero)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:06:20 -0300
Subject: [governance] INVITATION: Zero Rating event at the IGF
In-Reply-To: <007f01d1107f$a5053d10$ef0fb730$@in>
References: <CAMRB7ncZX3k8RKy+5P7CkTo7MPREcFRkNsPwD86oDZ-kQTsMVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <007f01d1107f$a5053d10$ef0fb730$@in>
Message-ID: <CAMRB7neeah_xsKRUKPmBj7KUTsrPHfeDeYBGp5Tbt1_80xjw4w@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Amrita,
we don't have remote participation yet, but we are considering that.

All of those who replied are now registered. Thank you!

*Javier Pallero*

http://about.me/javierpallero

PGP 0xC89034BC
Fingerprint 105E 3F73 CE73 C78A B3C3 9255 528C E57D C890 34BC

2015-10-27 3:20 GMT-03:00 Amrita CCAOI <amritachoudhury at ccaoi.in>:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Is there a provision for civil society members to participate remotely?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Amrita Choudhury
>
> CCAOI
>
> www.ccaoi.in
>
>
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Javier Pallero
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:08 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* [governance] INVITATION: Zero Rating event at the IGF
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Access Now would like to invite all civil society members attending the
> IGF to a day-long event on zero rating on *November 9*. There will be an
> open-door session on zero rating research in the morning and a closed-door
> strategic gathering for civil society members in the afternoon.
>
>
>
> *Morning session*
>
> The morning session will gather a small group of companies and researchers
> to conduct a "show and tell" of zero rating products and research. This
> will be a safe space for established companies, startups, and other
> interested parties to show off solutions to closing the global connectivity
> gap, and for researchers to present their findings on the effectiveness and
> effects of so-called "zero rating" and "equal rating" strategies.
>
>
>
> This open-door session will include 20-minute presentations on the various
> partnerships, technologies, business strategies, and other approaches being
> employed by companies and researchers. All presenters should come prepared
> to present products or findings, and to lead a short discussion.
>
>
>
> *Morning agenda:*
>
> 9.00 - 9:30 AM: Introductions
>
> 9:30 - 11:30 AM: Presentations and discussion
>
> 11:30 AM - 12.00 PM: Wrap-up
>
>
>
> *Afternoon session*
>
> In the afternoon, the Brazilian organization PROTESTE will join us in
> hosting a meeting with global civil society members attending the IGF to
> discuss strategies and perspectives on what’s coming next for the
> protection of users’ rights and also introduce a broader talk on zero
> rating, Net Neutrality, and the agenda for global connectivity – where the
> business sector is starting to play an important role.
>
>
>
> The meeting will be held as a closed-door session under Chatham House
> rules.
>
>
>
> *Afternoon agenda: *
>
> 2.00 - 4.00 PM: Roundtable discussion.
>
>
>
> *Venue and RSVP*
>
> Both meetings will be held in the *external auditorium* of the IGF venue
> –Poeta Ronaldo Cunha Lima Conference Center–.
>
>
>
> *Please, RSVP by responding to this e-mail if you are interested in
> attending any of the events or both.*
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Josh Levy - Advocacy Director / Access Now
>
> Javier Pallero - Policy Analyst / Access Now
>
>
>
>
> *Javier Pallero*
>
>
>
> http://about.me/javierpallero
>
> PGP 0xC89034BC
>
> Fingerprint 105E 3F73 CE73 C78A B3C3 9255 528C E57D C890 34BC
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151027/ad1533f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 27 14:41:42 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:41:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_FRIDAY=3A_The_High_Politics_of_Int?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ernet_Governance_=E2=80=93_WSIS+10_Panel_=40ColumbiaSIPA?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3xdJ7EhJNYW+sm9JTqNT4FD1B1kMJFjMBXEzKoxptG=Q@mail.gmail.com>

​SIPA have kindly offered ISOC-NY 5 seats at this event. *Only if you
definitely will attend* please RSVP at
http://www.meetup.com/isoc-ny/events/226348878/​.  For the rest of us there
will be a livestream.


joly posted: "On Friday October 30 2015 Columbia University's School of
International and Public Affairs will present a lunchtime panel The High
Politics of Internet Governance: Global Policy Conflicts a Decade after the
World Summit on the Information Society. On Dece"

[image: SIPA WSIS+10] <http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501>On *Friday
October 30 2015* Columbia University's *School of International and Public
Affairs <https://sipa.columbia.edu/>* will present a lunchtime panel *The
High Politics of Internet Governance: Global Policy Conflicts a Decade
after the World Summit on the Information Society
<https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/events/the-high-politics-of-internet-governance-global-policy-conflicts-a-decade-after-the-world-summit-on>*.
On December 15-16 in New York, the United Nations is convening a *General
Assembly High-Level Meeting
<http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/GA-High-Level-Meeting> *to review the goals of
the World Summit on the Information Society after a decade (WSIS+10) and to
craft a future vision for the information society. Input from various
stakeholders has raised questions about the future of the Internet and who
will run it. This Columbia SIPA panel will explain the implications of this
dialog for Internet sustainability, security, and freedom, and how this
high-level discussion connects to the planned transition of U.S. oversight
in Internet governance. Moderator: *Merit Janow*, Dean, School of
International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Columbia University. Panel: *Laura
DeNardis*, Professor, American University, and Senior Research Scholar,
Columbia SIPA; *Gordon Goldstein*, Managing Director and Head of External
Affairs, Silver Lake Group; *Ambassador David Gross*, Partner, Wiley
Rein; *Veni
Markovski*, Vice President, ICANN; *Ambassador Janis Mazeiks*, Ambassador,
Permanent Mission of the Republic of Latvia to the United Nations. The
event will be webcast live via the *Columbia SIPA Livestream Channel
<http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501>*.





*What: The High Politics of Internet Governance: Global Policy Conflicts a
Decade after the World Summit on the Information Society
<https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/events/the-high-politics-of-internet-governance-global-policy-conflicts-a-decade-after-the-world-summit-on>
Where: School of International and Public Affairs, NYC When: Friday October
30 2015 1pm-2pm EDT | 17:00-18:00 UTC Webcast:
http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501
<http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501> Twitter: @ColumbiaSIPA
<https://twitter.com/search?q=%40ColumbiaSIPA> | #WSIS10
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/WSIS10>*


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8152#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8152#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8152









-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151027/ae6145a4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Oct 27 17:29:21 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:29:21 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGF Speakers
Message-ID: <7533625E70614101A19F5087130814CA@Toshiba>

(apologies for cross-posting)

Thanks everyone for the various nominations on various lists. These close at midnight UTC 28th, and CSCG will then consider, as we need to submit names by the end of this week.

In addition to the names, thank you for the various valuable considerations on criteria; and also on what CS speakers might address. 

These are the names I have seen thus far. If you wish to withdraw, or your name has been left off in error (or because it was forwarded privately or on a list to which I do not have access), please feel free to correct this list (privately to me if you prefer) Also please note that nominations are not closed yet, so this is not a final list.

It’s a great list already. It will be tough to narrow this down to only 2 speakers.

Josh Levy
Geetha Hariharan
Fernanda Shirikawa
Carolina Rossini
Anja Kovacs
Anriette Esterhuysen
Nnenna Nwakanma
Paz Pena
Maira Sutton
Max Schrems
Marilia Maciel
Joana Varon
Bonface Witaba


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151028/8590268a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng  Wed Oct 28 07:37:47 2015
From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:37:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF Speakers
In-Reply-To: <7533625E70614101A19F5087130814CA@Toshiba>
References: <7533625E70614101A19F5087130814CA@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAOz-jXRsZ9sUZRknwOGnx4Wc5m71ycZ_PsH5SwQjAsUBtCC1WA@mail.gmail.com>

Really a tough selection to make. I wish CSCG bountiful wisdom.

CPU

______________________________________
Sent from a Lenovo smartphone.
On Oct 27, 2015 10:30 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> (apologies for cross-posting)
>
> Thanks everyone for the various nominations on various lists. These close
> at midnight UTC 28th, and CSCG will then consider, as we need to submit
> names by the end of this week.
>
> In addition to the names, thank you for the various valuable
> considerations on criteria; and also on what CS speakers might address.
>
> These are the names I have seen thus far. If you wish to withdraw, or your
> name has been left off in error (or because it was forwarded privately or
> on a list to which I do not have access), please feel free to correct this
> list (privately to me if you prefer) Also please note that nominations are
> not closed yet, so this is not a final list.
>
> It’s a great list already. It will be tough to narrow this down to only 2
> speakers.
>
> Josh Levy
> Geetha Hariharan
> Fernanda Shirikawa
> Carolina Rossini
> Anja Kovacs
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> Paz Pena
> Maira Sutton
> Max Schrems
> Marilia Maciel
> Joana Varon
> Bonface Witaba
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151028/ddcdc7b6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Oct 28 10:05:42 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:35:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net>

Milton

You basically do not agree with the proposition I advanced that the
Internet is getting more and more centralised and to that extent less
people centric, and you consider the two examples I gave in this regard
as 'not encouraging'. Whereby, I understand it to mean that your view is
that the Internet keeps getting more and more decentralised, and thus
more and more people-centric, or at least there is no proof to the
contrary. Am I right in making such a deduction?

I stand by my examples as proving my proposition, and I can cite a lot
of papers, even books, and others sources, even initiatives aiming at
're-decentralising the Internet' but I dont think that is going to
matter to you. Meanwhile, the proposition of increasing concentration of
power on and due to the Internet, unless deliberate interventions to the
contrary are employed, is so basic to the work that my organisation and
also our wider networks undertake that I am not sure where I can take
this argument any further with you. It is like saying that globalisation
causes no economic injustices, which is of course something that you
might as well believe. The only thing I can say, especially since you
frequently employ this allegation, is that such a viewpoint is no less
ideological than one which claims that globalisation does cause economic
injustices.

In any case, the evidences that you provide to show that all is well
with the Internet (at least on the economic and social rights/ justice
side) are very interesting. Most of your case rests on a single pillar,
that of user choice - since a lot of people are using the Internet, and
increasingly so, it must be providing them value, and that seals the
argument for you.

This is a typically erroneous way of looking at any technology's impact
on the society, especially such a pervasively general purpose, and
social, one as the new ICTs. Any new technology paradigm provides an
immediate cascade of useful possibilities, and value propositions. That
much is but obvious. However a claim that this 'fact' by itself proves
the currently dominant trajectory and manner of technology evolution as
the best one may not hold water. Other trajectories could yield more
benefit, overall, and/ or in the distributional aspect. I am sure that
you are not such a techno- deterministic so as to believe that there is
indeed only one possible path, that which we witness around us or have
witnessed. As the World Social Forum ( i can already see the derision on
your face :) ) says 'Another World is Possible'. We think that another
path for techno-social evolution of the Internet and associated social
phenomena is possible. As you perhaps know, there is a plan to hold an
Internet Social Forum next year, with the slogan 'Another Internet is
Possible'. (Meanwhile, do see the recent posting by Lee on 'platform
cooperativism' for an example of charting a ;different path' forward.)

I am sure you do not have time for all this 'ideological stuff'. But you
certainly have time to declare that the Internet is neoliberal, and this
new communication paradigm would or needs to follow none of the
old-world soft stuff of public, community or otherwise collectivist
approaches that do often get applied to communication and media systems
. And all this belief of yours is some kind of a given technical fact,
and nothing of an ideology!

Milton, user choices cannot determine everything and dont prove much.
Users make choices within the constrained structures that they are
subject to, and these structures themselves may not be easily mutable or
influenced by simple series of consumer choices. Such facts are well
known in sociological theory, and it is just an ideologically motivated
stream of economic thought that over-relies on 'user choice' to 'prove'
that what it in fact ideologically holds as a prior belief.

I am sure that you can and will also use your logic of, to quote, 
"choices people make to adopt, say, Facebook in huge and growing
numbers"  to prove that people do not care about a net neutral Internet,
neither do they value their privacy.

You are so taken by a narrow economic ideology that you seem to miss
every political nuance... When I showed my disappointment that the
Internet has continued to become more closed even under the watch of
IGF, I of course took the IGF as a (hopefully) participatory sphere for
public influence on Internet policies, but you chose to read it as I
trying to put the Internet under a "centralized system under any single
authority's "watch."

This quite eloquently shows how different our modes of political thought
and expression are, which is what makes it so much difficult for us to
carry on a conversation here; and, incidentally, not my stupidity or
ignorance which you miss no opportunity to point to. (yes, I know what a
p2p technology is. I spoke of email as p2p as you would speak of a
consumer to consumer model as against consumer to business.)

Lastly, I am quite surprised at how narrowly you construct the field of
Internet governance when you say that the Volkswagen and John Deere
cases that I referred to while being interesting have nothing to do with
IG... Dont you see that Volkswagen's software cheating is only a step
away from algorithm cheating and its possible devastating social impact;
and what does the argument of 'software with mechanical parts' mean in
the age of Internet of Things. I take the field of Internet governance
to widely sweep across the area of governance of the digital realm, and
especially today there is not much difference between a stand alone
digital artefact and a networked one, I mean there is a clear growing
convergence there.

parminder


On Monday 26 October 2015 02:02 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> This is the 10th anniversary of WSIS which called for a people-centred and
>> development-oriented information society. Let us examine if we have a more
>> people-centric Internet today than we had in 2005, and if not so, what are the
>> reasons, and what should have been done, and needs to be done, especially
>> from the point of view of governance of the Internet.
>> Can we agree to this being a key element that we should be focussed on?
> No. 
>
> Can you provide me with a metric of "people-centeredness"? One that is meaningful to all and not a purely ideological construct? The examples you gave below were not encouraging. 
>
>> The Internet to me is rather less people- centric in its 'design' today than it
>> was 10 years ago... Of course so many more people use the Internet today,
>> which is rather obvious for a such a breakthrough technical advance, but for
> So the people who are adopting and using the Internet don't count in your calculation. Interesting. The choices people make to adopt, say, Facebook in huge and growing numbers, does not mean that they see value in this in your book. What then does it mean? 
>
>> the present purpose lets keep the focus on its design; is it more people-centric
>> today than it was 10 years ago
> I have no idea what you mean by the 'design' of the Internet. If you are not talking about techno-management, and you are not talking about the design of the standards and protocols, from your examples below it sounds like you are talking about the economic organization or business models of service providers who run "over the top." 
>
>> (1) Email was still the major p2p Internet application in 2005
> Sigh. Email as P2P. Can someone other than me explain what's wrong with this assertion to P? I don't have time.
>
>> media has overtaken it. Email system was based on public standards written
>> by IETF and other standards organisations, whereby there were no lock-ins
>> and every email service could interact with all others based on these public
>> protocols. 
> Every email service can still interact with all others, and so can all the platforms.
>
> I don't think you have a very accurate recollection or a very deep understanding of the compatibility issues here. What was your email client in 2005? Or 1995 for that matter? Mine was MS Outlook in 2005 and Netscape's browser in 1995. Have you tried moving your stored emails from either client to any other one? It was more difficult in 1995 than in 2005, and more difficult in 2005 than now. True, email standards interconnect all different clients then as now but there were various lock-in mechanisms. There is always a dynamic between competition, innovation and standardization, between open and proprietary, and you haven't made much of a case that we are tilting more one way than the other. 
>
>> Compare that with a Facebook or a Twitter and you will easily see
>> what I am driving at. 
> Sorry, I still don't see what you are driving at. I can see anyone's Tweet on the web, they can email me a link to it. Facebook seems to be a bit more closed off, (I am not a Facebook user (yeah, we do exist), so I am less sure of how users allow or do not allow access to their pages), but there were equivalent platforms in 2005. Since these blockages are a result of user choice, how is this a less "people-centered" internet? 
>
>> (2) In 2005, Web was the unchallenged king on the Internet, today proprietary
>> apps are increasingly taking its place. Again, I am not saying that we should
> Wrong. Most "proprietary" apps are free, and they link to and complement the web, they do not substitute for it. Furthermore, tons of web sites had (and still have) paywalls or login requirements in 2005.  
>
>> I think there is a limit to which we can simply keep extolling the great wonder
>> that the IGF is - we must explain what inter alia has it really contributed, or
>> failed to contribute, to the mentioned very problematic development, which
>> have been taking place under its watch, and the watch of a veritable travelling
>> circus that the global IG scene has become.
> Even though I largely agree with the implied criticism of the IGF, and 100% agree that we must always ask what it has contributed, I think when you say the Internet has developed in the way it has "under its watch" you are exaggerating the significance of what the IGF is or could be. The Internet, like the overall economy, is not a centralized system under any single authority's "watch."
>
>> In this background, ones heart cringes to witness, as I had to witness last week
>> in New York, how the UN's WSIS + 10 review process is behaving as if there is
>> just nothing wrong with the Internet, and the manner in which it is effecting
>> large-scale structural changes in the world, in almost all sectors. There was
>> practically no mention at all of the numerous issues in this regard that we
>> read almost daily in the newspapers (Volkswagen's software cheating, John
>> Deere claiming that its tractors are in fact software with mechanical parts,
>> and so on. To mention just two news that I read over the last 2-3 weeks alone.
>> The list in fact is unending).
> These are interesting developments in IT, but have no connection whatsoever to Internet governance.
>
>> There was no political energy at all in the room (at
>> WSIS review), and everyone seemed wanting the proceedings to end quickly
>> so that they could leave. This is quite in contrast to the politically charged
>> discussions during the original WSIS... What has happened in the meanwhile?
> Interesting question. Worth discussing. I have my ideas about that, but you probably would not like them.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151028/38337ce4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 28 09:48:46 2015
From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene Tungali)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:48:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF Speakers
Message-ID: <m4u9dj16h94libnetoulyu6x.1446040126859@email.android.com>

This will be a tough choice to make. All these are great people, representing CS. How do you guys plan to chose 2 out of this? A vote from the community?

-----
Arsene Tungali,
Executive Director, Rudi International.
Founder & Director, Mabingwa Forum.

Mandela Washington Fellow. ICANN Fellow. ISOC IGF Ambassador. Blogger. Child Online Protection. Communications Specialist.

Democratic Republic of Congo.
Sent from Huawei Mobile (excuse typos)

Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To 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/20151028/06a3ebc2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Oct 28 11:14:32 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:14:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF Speakers
In-Reply-To: <m4u9dj16h94libnetoulyu6x.1446040126859@email.android.com>
References: <m4u9dj16h94libnetoulyu6x.1446040126859@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6On8nZKhuPDz=00+nveZd1+ssXDGJ+kdUbSJv-2XBrFA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Arsene,
My understanding of the process is that members of each of the groups which
are members of the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) are all invited
to make nominations (self-nominations also eligible) from their groups to
the CSCG. The CSCG then negotiates to choose the two most appropriate
people from those who have been nominated. These names are sent to the
Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) (which may have received other
nominations from civil society which has chosen not to engage with the
CSCG). The final recommendations are made by the MAG to the IGF Secretariat.
If anyone notices that this account is inaccurate in any way please correct
it for the benefit of the list.
Thank you
Deirdre

On 28 October 2015 at 09:48, Arsene Tungali <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr> wrote:

> This will be a tough choice to make. All these are great people,
> representing CS. How do you guys plan to chose 2 out of this? A vote from
> the community?
>
> -----
> Arsene Tungali,
> Executive Director, Rudi International.
> Founder & Director, Mabingwa Forum.
>
> Mandela Washington Fellow. ICANN Fellow. ISOC IGF Ambassador. Blogger.
> Child Online Protection. Communications Specialist.
>
> Democratic Republic of Congo.
> Sent from Huawei Mobile (excuse typos)
>
>
> Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> (apologies for cross-posting)
>
> Thanks everyone for the various nominations on various lists. These close
> at midnight UTC 28th, and CSCG will then consider, as we need to submit
> names by the end of this week.
>
> In addition to the names, thank you for the various valuable
> considerations on criteria; and also on what CS speakers might address.
>
> These are the names I have seen thus far. If you wish to withdraw, or your
> name has been left off in error (or because it was forwarded privately or
> on a list to which I do not have access), please feel free to correct this
> list (privately to me if you prefer) Also please note that nominations are
> not closed yet, so this is not a final list.
>
> It’s a great list already. It will be tough to narrow this down to only 2
> speakers.
>
> Josh Levy
> Geetha Hariharan
> Fernanda Shirikawa
> Carolina Rossini
> Anja Kovacs
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> Paz Pena
> Maira Sutton
> Max Schrems
> Marilia Maciel
> Joana Varon
> Bonface Witaba
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151028/9c5d5a6a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Wed Oct 28 14:56:34 2015
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:56:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] IGF Speakers
In-Reply-To: <7533625E70614101A19F5087130814CA@Toshiba>
References: <7533625E70614101A19F5087130814CA@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPFVuTZBYqeRFQtwOxn89FUuDG+AoiYKTHhKqF8GjKjisQ@mail.gmail.com>

I nominate Prof. Nii Quaynor

On Tuesday, October 27, 2015, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> (apologies for cross-posting)
>
> Thanks everyone for the various nominations on various lists. These close
at midnight UTC 28th, and CSCG will then consider, as we need to submit
names by the end of this week.
>
> In addition to the names, thank you for the various valuable
considerations on criteria; and also on what CS speakers might address.
>
> These are the names I have seen thus far. If you wish to withdraw, or
your name has been left off in error (or because it was forwarded privately
or on a list to which I do not have access), please feel free to correct
this list (privately to me if you prefer) Also please note that nominations
are not closed yet, so this is not a final list.
>
> It’s a great list already. It will be tough to narrow this down to only 2
speakers.
>
> Josh Levy
> Geetha Hariharan
> Fernanda Shirikawa
> Carolina Rossini
> Anja Kovacs
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> Paz Pena
> Maira Sutton
> Max Schrems
> Marilia Maciel
> Joana Varon
> Bonface Witaba
>
>
>

-- 
WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)
ICANN Fellow / ISOC Member
Web/OGPL Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Ghana Open Data Initiative (GODI)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151028/b5103c77/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 28 14:58:32 2015
From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene Tungali)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:58:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF Speakers
Message-ID: <wfbdb3p37bcxihv2y0k0c38j.1446058712099@email.android.com>

Thanks De,
That looks like a fair and long process. But I understand the need to have a good representative.

-----
Arsene Tungali,
Executive Director, Rudi International.
Founder & Director, Mabingwa Forum.

Mandela Washington Fellow. ICANN Fellow. ISOC IGF Ambassador. Blogger. Child Online Protection. Communications Specialist.

Democratic Republic of Congo.
Sent from Huawei Mobile (excuse typos)

Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

>Dear Arsene,
>
>My understanding of the process is that members of each of the groups which are members of the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) are all invited to make nominations (self-nominations also eligible) from their groups to the CSCG. The CSCG then negotiates to choose the two most appropriate people from those who have been nominated. These names are sent to the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) (which may have received other nominations from civil society which has chosen not to engage with the CSCG). The final recommendations are made by the MAG to the IGF Secretariat.
>
>If anyone notices that this account is inaccurate in any way please correct it for the benefit of the list.
>
>Thank you
>
>Deirdre
>
>
>On 28 October 2015 at 09:48, Arsene Tungali <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
>This will be a tough choice to make. All these are great people, representing CS. How do you guys plan to chose 2 out of this? A vote from the community?
>
>-----
>Arsene Tungali,
>Executive Director, Rudi International.
>Founder & Director, Mabingwa Forum.
>
>Mandela Washington Fellow. ICANN Fellow. ISOC IGF Ambassador. Blogger. Child Online Protection. Communications Specialist.
>
>Democratic Republic of Congo.
>Sent from Huawei Mobile (excuse typos)
>
>
>
>Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>(apologies for cross-posting)
>
> 
>
>Thanks everyone for the various nominations on various lists. These close at midnight UTC 28th, and CSCG will then consider, as we need to submit names by the end of this week.
>
> 
>
>In addition to the names, thank you for the various valuable considerations on criteria; and also on what CS speakers might address. 
>
> 
>
>These are the names I have seen thus far. If you wish to withdraw, or your name has been left off in error (or because it was forwarded privately or on a list to which I do not have access), please feel free to correct this list (privately to me if you prefer) Also please note that nominations are not closed yet, so this is not a final list.
>
> 
>
>It’s a great list already. It will be tough to narrow this down to only 2 speakers.
>
> 
>
>Josh Levy
>
>Geetha Hariharan
>
>Fernanda Shirikawa
>
>Carolina Rossini
>
>Anja Kovacs
>
>Anriette Esterhuysen
>
>Nnenna Nwakanma
>
>Paz Pena
>
>Maira Sutton
>
>Max Schrems
>
>Marilia Maciel
>
>Joana Varon
>
>Bonface Witaba
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To 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/20151028/7913b801/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Thu Oct 29 00:20:50 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:20:50 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <00F502C9-26FE-423A-A7CE-62613595E536@difference.com.au>


> On 26 Oct 2015, at 4:32 am, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> This is the 10th anniversary of WSIS which called for a people-centred and
>> development-oriented information society. Let us examine if we have a more
>> people-centric Internet today than we had in 2005, and if not so, what are the
>> reasons, and what should have been done, and needs to be done, especially
>> from the point of view of governance of the Internet.
>> Can we agree to this being a key element that we should be focussed on?
> 
> No.
> 
> Can you provide me with a metric of "people-centeredness"? One that is meaningful to all and not a purely ideological construct? The examples you gave below were not encouraging.
> 
>> The Internet to me is rather less people- centric in its 'design' today than it
>> was 10 years ago... Of course so many more people use the Internet today,
>> which is rather obvious for a such a breakthrough technical advance, but for
> 
> So the people who are adopting and using the Internet don't count in your calculation. Interesting. The choices people make to adopt, say, Facebook in huge and growing numbers, does not mean that they see value in this in your book. What then does it mean?
> 
>> the present purpose lets keep the focus on its design; is it more people-centric
>> today than it was 10 years ago
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by the 'design' of the Internet. If you are not talking about techno-management, and you are not talking about the design of the standards and protocols, from your examples below it sounds like you are talking about the economic organization or business models of service providers who run "over the top."
> 
>> (1) Email was still the major p2p Internet application in 2005
> 
> Sigh. Email as P2P. Can someone other than me explain what's wrong with this assertion to P? I don't have time.

	Sure.
	P2P implies that individual internet clients connect directly to other internet clients, with no intrinsic ongoing distinction between the role of one client and another. Email is built on a client/server architecture - there is a very distinct difference between an email client (using the POP or IMAP or similar protocols to collect email from) and an email server (using the SMTP protocol to receive mail from other email servers, and store and forward). These two aspects of the email system are quite separate, and generally involve separate software, separate protocols, and separate operating parameters.
	It is true that the email server system is decentralised with no intrinsic hierarchy, but it is a network of servers rather than a peer to peer system - email servers have set, stable roles (to accept mail for specific domains) and do not shift these roles and resources around the way a peer to peer system does.
	I think the issue here is confusion of the technical architecture of a service with its economic/institutional structure. In the case of email, its technically a client-server architecture with non-hierarchical connections between servers, while economically/institutionally it is a decentralised system in which each server is responsible for its own service provision and administration.  While not entirely unrelated, the two are separate issues - you could have a peer to peer architecture that depended entirely on a single commercial client, or a server based architecture that was accessible via entirely open source and free software (as email is) or any combination thereof, or other variations depending on the service (Skype, for example, originally used peer to peer for direct communications (and client server for authentication and some other aspects), while being economically a single corporate service - enabling Microsoft to change its architecture to using Microsoft controlled supernodes, thus enabling central surveillance).
	Confusing the technical and economic and institutional architectures like this is a problem, because it leads to confusing the roles of the bodies that regulate the various levels.
	ICANN, for example, is constantly full of arguments along the lines of some group (be it govt/LEA/business/Civil society) saying ‘I want you to fix this problem’ and the ICANN community (or corporation) having to convince them that ‘I know you want to fix that problem, but you can’t fix it here because this is the wrong place’ - because people assume that its technical central role amounts to it being top of a political hierarchy (when actually, ICANN of course has no mandate to overrule national laws).
	Regards

		David


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151029/cba975ef/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Oct 29 01:58:40 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:28:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>

All this is daily news stuff, but still... This is what I read today

(begins)

Avast CEO shared analysis done by company of top 100 applications on
Android in the month of September.

As per the analysis, 99 per cent of these applications have entire
control of mobile phone which means they remotely operate phone as a
user does and 92 per cent can view network connections.

One out of 10 of top 100 applications can record audio and take pictures
and videos and 9 out of 10 are able to read storage content which can
modify or delete, as per the report.

(ends)

http://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/google-whatsapp-and-facebook-breaching-users-privacy-claims-cyber-security-firm-avast/49572113


Hopefully it will indeed scare people here one day enough to decide to
do something, within the limited degrees of options for civil society
players.

parminder

On Wednesday 28 October 2015 07:35 PM, parminder wrote:
> Milton
>
> You basically do not agree with the proposition I advanced that the
> Internet is getting more and more centralised and to that extent less
> people centric, and you consider the two examples I gave in this
> regard as 'not encouraging'. Whereby, I understand it to mean that
> your view is that the Internet keeps getting more and more
> decentralised, and thus more and more people-centric, or at least
> there is no proof to the contrary. Am I right in making such a deduction?
>
> I stand by my examples as proving my proposition, and I can cite a lot
> of papers, even books, and others sources, even initiatives aiming at
> 're-decentralising the Internet' but I dont think that is going to
> matter to you. Meanwhile, the proposition of increasing concentration
> of power on and due to the Internet, unless deliberate interventions
> to the contrary are employed, is so basic to the work that my
> organisation and also our wider networks undertake that I am not sure
> where I can take this argument any further with you. It is like saying
> that globalisation causes no economic injustices, which is of course
> something that you might as well believe. The only thing I can say,
> especially since you frequently employ this allegation, is that such a
> viewpoint is no less ideological than one which claims that
> globalisation does cause economic injustices.
>
> In any case, the evidences that you provide to show that all is well
> with the Internet (at least on the economic and social rights/ justice
> side) are very interesting. Most of your case rests on a single
> pillar, that of user choice - since a lot of people are using the
> Internet, and increasingly so, it must be providing them value, and
> that seals the argument for you.
>
> This is a typically erroneous way of looking at any technology's
> impact on the society, especially such a pervasively general purpose,
> and social, one as the new ICTs. Any new technology paradigm provides
> an immediate cascade of useful possibilities, and value propositions.
> That much is but obvious. However a claim that this 'fact' by itself
> proves the currently dominant trajectory and manner of technology
> evolution as the best one may not hold water. Other trajectories could
> yield more benefit, overall, and/ or in the distributional aspect. I
> am sure that you are not such a techno- deterministic so as to believe
> that there is indeed only one possible path, that which we witness
> around us or have witnessed. As the World Social Forum ( i can already
> see the derision on your face :) ) says 'Another World is Possible'.
> We think that another path for techno-social evolution of the Internet
> and associated social phenomena is possible. As you perhaps know,
> there is a plan to hold an Internet Social Forum next year, with the
> slogan 'Another Internet is Possible'. (Meanwhile, do see the recent
> posting by Lee on 'platform cooperativism' for an example of charting
> a ;different path' forward.)
>
> I am sure you do not have time for all this 'ideological stuff'. But
> you certainly have time to declare that the Internet is neoliberal,
> and this new communication paradigm would or needs to follow none of
> the old-world soft stuff of public, community or otherwise
> collectivist approaches that do often get applied to communication and
> media systems . And all this belief of yours is some kind of a given
> technical fact, and nothing of an ideology!
>
> Milton, user choices cannot determine everything and dont prove much.
> Users make choices within the constrained structures that they are
> subject to, and these structures themselves may not be easily mutable
> or influenced by simple series of consumer choices. Such facts are
> well known in sociological theory, and it is just an ideologically
> motivated stream of economic thought that over-relies on 'user choice'
> to 'prove' that what it in fact ideologically holds as a prior belief.
>
> I am sure that you can and will also use your logic of, to quote, 
> "choices people make to adopt, say, Facebook in huge and growing
> numbers"  to prove that people do not care about a net neutral
> Internet, neither do they value their privacy.
>
> You are so taken by a narrow economic ideology that you seem to miss
> every political nuance... When I showed my disappointment that the
> Internet has continued to become more closed even under the watch of
> IGF, I of course took the IGF as a (hopefully) participatory sphere
> for public influence on Internet policies, but you chose to read it as
> I trying to put the Internet under a "centralized system under any
> single authority's "watch."
>
> This quite eloquently shows how different our modes of political
> thought and expression are, which is what makes it so much difficult
> for us to carry on a conversation here; and, incidentally, not my
> stupidity or ignorance which you miss no opportunity to point to.
> (yes, I know what a p2p technology is. I spoke of email as p2p as you
> would speak of a consumer to consumer model as against consumer to
> business.)
>
> Lastly, I am quite surprised at how narrowly you construct the field
> of Internet governance when you say that the Volkswagen and John Deere
> cases that I referred to while being interesting have nothing to do
> with IG... Dont you see that Volkswagen's software cheating is only a
> step away from algorithm cheating and its possible devastating social
> impact; and what does the argument of 'software with mechanical parts'
> mean in the age of Internet of Things. I take the field of Internet
> governance to widely sweep across the area of governance of the
> digital realm, and especially today there is not much difference
> between a stand alone digital artefact and a networked one, I mean
> there is a clear growing convergence there.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Monday 26 October 2015 02:02 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> This is the 10th anniversary of WSIS which called for a people-centred and
>>> development-oriented information society. Let us examine if we have a more
>>> people-centric Internet today than we had in 2005, and if not so, what are the
>>> reasons, and what should have been done, and needs to be done, especially
>>> from the point of view of governance of the Internet.
>>> Can we agree to this being a key element that we should be focussed on?
>> No. 
>>
>> Can you provide me with a metric of "people-centeredness"? One that is meaningful to all and not a purely ideological construct? The examples you gave below were not encouraging. 
>>
>>> The Internet to me is rather less people- centric in its 'design' today than it
>>> was 10 years ago... Of course so many more people use the Internet today,
>>> which is rather obvious for a such a breakthrough technical advance, but for
>> So the people who are adopting and using the Internet don't count in your calculation. Interesting. The choices people make to adopt, say, Facebook in huge and growing numbers, does not mean that they see value in this in your book. What then does it mean? 
>>
>>> the present purpose lets keep the focus on its design; is it more people-centric
>>> today than it was 10 years ago
>> I have no idea what you mean by the 'design' of the Internet. If you are not talking about techno-management, and you are not talking about the design of the standards and protocols, from your examples below it sounds like you are talking about the economic organization or business models of service providers who run "over the top." 
>>
>>> (1) Email was still the major p2p Internet application in 2005
>> Sigh. Email as P2P. Can someone other than me explain what's wrong with this assertion to P? I don't have time.
>>
>>> media has overtaken it. Email system was based on public standards written
>>> by IETF and other standards organisations, whereby there were no lock-ins
>>> and every email service could interact with all others based on these public
>>> protocols. 
>> Every email service can still interact with all others, and so can all the platforms.
>>
>> I don't think you have a very accurate recollection or a very deep understanding of the compatibility issues here. What was your email client in 2005? Or 1995 for that matter? Mine was MS Outlook in 2005 and Netscape's browser in 1995. Have you tried moving your stored emails from either client to any other one? It was more difficult in 1995 than in 2005, and more difficult in 2005 than now. True, email standards interconnect all different clients then as now but there were various lock-in mechanisms. There is always a dynamic between competition, innovation and standardization, between open and proprietary, and you haven't made much of a case that we are tilting more one way than the other. 
>>
>>> Compare that with a Facebook or a Twitter and you will easily see
>>> what I am driving at. 
>> Sorry, I still don't see what you are driving at. I can see anyone's Tweet on the web, they can email me a link to it. Facebook seems to be a bit more closed off, (I am not a Facebook user (yeah, we do exist), so I am less sure of how users allow or do not allow access to their pages), but there were equivalent platforms in 2005. Since these blockages are a result of user choice, how is this a less "people-centered" internet? 
>>
>>> (2) In 2005, Web was the unchallenged king on the Internet, today proprietary
>>> apps are increasingly taking its place. Again, I am not saying that we should
>> Wrong. Most "proprietary" apps are free, and they link to and complement the web, they do not substitute for it. Furthermore, tons of web sites had (and still have) paywalls or login requirements in 2005.  
>>
>>> I think there is a limit to which we can simply keep extolling the great wonder
>>> that the IGF is - we must explain what inter alia has it really contributed, or
>>> failed to contribute, to the mentioned very problematic development, which
>>> have been taking place under its watch, and the watch of a veritable travelling
>>> circus that the global IG scene has become.
>> Even though I largely agree with the implied criticism of the IGF, and 100% agree that we must always ask what it has contributed, I think when you say the Internet has developed in the way it has "under its watch" you are exaggerating the significance of what the IGF is or could be. The Internet, like the overall economy, is not a centralized system under any single authority's "watch."
>>
>>> In this background, ones heart cringes to witness, as I had to witness last week
>>> in New York, how the UN's WSIS + 10 review process is behaving as if there is
>>> just nothing wrong with the Internet, and the manner in which it is effecting
>>> large-scale structural changes in the world, in almost all sectors. There was
>>> practically no mention at all of the numerous issues in this regard that we
>>> read almost daily in the newspapers (Volkswagen's software cheating, John
>>> Deere claiming that its tractors are in fact software with mechanical parts,
>>> and so on. To mention just two news that I read over the last 2-3 weeks alone.
>>> The list in fact is unending).
>> These are interesting developments in IT, but have no connection whatsoever to Internet governance.
>>
>>> There was no political energy at all in the room (at
>>> WSIS review), and everyone seemed wanting the proceedings to end quickly
>>> so that they could leave. This is quite in contrast to the politically charged
>>> discussions during the original WSIS... What has happened in the meanwhile?
>> Interesting question. Worth discussing. I have my ideas about that, but you probably would not like them.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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/20151029/f3fde80a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Oct 29 02:29:00 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:59:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net>

Those are applications that 

1. You choose to install
2. You choose to specifically grant those permissions to

> On 29-Oct-2015, at 11:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> Avast CEO shared analysis done by company of top 100 applications on Android in the month of September.
> 
> As per the analysis, 99 per cent of these applications have entire control of mobile phone which means they remotely operate phone as a user does and 92 per cent can view network connections.
> 
> One out of 10 of top 100 applications can record audio and take pictures and videos and 9 out of 10 are able to read storage content which can modify or delete, as per the report.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151029/77c2fded/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 08:28:41 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:28:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>

This is why the "human right" that concerns me most at the moment is the
right to say no, the right to choose, the right to differ.
Somewhere the sense that we have the freedom NOT to click has got lost in a
compulsion that "this is the only way". "If I don't have Facebook I'll lose
touch with my family." "This is a 'must have' app". These statements are
still NOT TRUE, and we should not allow them to become true.
Admittedly when recently I posted a letter to Barbados, just over 100 miles
away, I was told that the letter would arrive "in the next two weeks", but
it did arrive.
Without the internet the selection procedure which gave this thread its
subject would not have been possible within the time, but it would still
have been possible. Might have taken a year or two, but we could have done
it. :-)
We are supposed to be using the tool, not the tool using us.
We have a choice and we should exercise it before it atrophies and
disappears.
Deirdre

On 29 October 2015 at 02:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
wrote:

> Those are applications that
>
> 1. You choose to install
> 2. You choose to specifically grant those permissions to
>
> On 29-Oct-2015, at 11:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Avast CEO shared analysis done by company of top 100 applications on
> Android in the month of September.
>
> As per the analysis, 99 per cent of these applications have entire control
> of mobile phone which means they remotely operate phone as a user does and
> 92 per cent can view network connections.
>
> One out of 10 of top 100 applications can record audio and take pictures
> and videos and 9 out of 10 are able to read storage content which can
> modify or delete, as per the report.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151029/6c0bdd6b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Oct 29 08:54:35 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:24:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A3B5BAF1-300C-4C87-8BBD-BF20A122C61B@hserus.net>

As you say, there is a huge temptation to say yes.

There are also alternatives - even internet based ones, rather than postal mail - that are more privacy conscious and that everyone is perfectly welcome to / encouraged to use.

> On 29-Oct-2015, at 5:58 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This is why the "human right" that concerns me most at the moment is the right to say no, the right to choose, the right to differ.
> Somewhere the sense that we have the freedom NOT to click has got lost in a compulsion that "this is the only way". "If I don't have Facebook I'll lose touch with my family." "This is a 'must have' app". These statements are still NOT TRUE, and we should not allow them to become true.
> Admittedly when recently I posted a letter to Barbados, just over 100 miles away, I was told that the letter would arrive "in the next two weeks", but it did arrive.
> Without the internet the selection procedure which gave this thread its subject would not have been possible within the time, but it would still have been possible. Might have taken a year or two, but we could have done it. :-)
> We are supposed to be using the tool, not the tool using us.
> We have a choice and we should exercise it before it atrophies and disappears.
> Deirdre
> 
> On 29 October 2015 at 02:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
> Those are applications that 
> 
> 1. You choose to install
> 2. You choose to specifically grant those permissions to
> 
>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 11:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> Avast CEO shared analysis done by company of top 100 applications on Android in the month of September.
>> 
>> As per the analysis, 99 per cent of these applications have entire control of mobile phone which means they remotely operate phone as a user does and 92 per cent can view network connections.
>> 
>> One out of 10 of top 100 applications can record audio and take pictures and videos and 9 out of 10 are able to read storage content which can modify or delete, as per the report.
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> “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/20151029/a524b7e7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 09:12:45 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:12:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <A3B5BAF1-300C-4C87-8BBD-BF20A122C61B@hserus.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
 <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
 <A3B5BAF1-300C-4C87-8BBD-BF20A122C61B@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN64B9+=GE2XD4=5tghgpU_qKUBdNw=hG-WpePg_S2rqMg@mail.gmail.com>

As a serendipitous post script to my earlier message -
Latin America and the Caribbean are currently celebrating the fact that the
face of Ida Holz, an internet pioneer, has been chosen for a postage stamp
in Uruguay.
We ask that surveillance be "proportionate". Should our response to the
technology be proportionate too?

On 29 October 2015 at 08:54, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
wrote:

> As you say, there is a huge temptation to say yes.
>
> There are also alternatives - even internet based ones, rather than postal
> mail - that are more privacy conscious and that everyone is perfectly
> welcome to / encouraged to use.
>
> On 29-Oct-2015, at 5:58 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> This is why the "human right" that concerns me most at the moment is the
> right to say no, the right to choose, the right to differ.
> Somewhere the sense that we have the freedom NOT to click has got lost in
> a compulsion that "this is the only way". "If I don't have Facebook I'll
> lose touch with my family." "This is a 'must have' app". These statements
> are still NOT TRUE, and we should not allow them to become true.
> Admittedly when recently I posted a letter to Barbados, just over 100
> miles away, I was told that the letter would arrive "in the next two
> weeks", but it did arrive.
> Without the internet the selection procedure which gave this thread its
> subject would not have been possible within the time, but it would still
> have been possible. Might have taken a year or two, but we could have done
> it. :-)
> We are supposed to be using the tool, not the tool using us.
> We have a choice and we should exercise it before it atrophies and
> disappears.
> Deirdre
>
> On 29 October 2015 at 02:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Those are applications that
>>
>> 1. You choose to install
>> 2. You choose to specifically grant those permissions to
>>
>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 11:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>> Avast CEO shared analysis done by company of top 100 applications on
>> Android in the month of September.
>>
>> As per the analysis, 99 per cent of these applications have entire
>> control of mobile phone which means they remotely operate phone as a user
>> does and 92 per cent can view network connections.
>>
>> One out of 10 of top 100 applications can record audio and take pictures
>> and videos and 9 out of 10 are able to read storage content which can
>> modify or delete, as per the report.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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
>
>
>


-- 
“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/20151029/8c6eebdf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Oct 29 09:19:51 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:49:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN64B9+=GE2XD4=5tghgpU_qKUBdNw=hG-WpePg_S2rqMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com> <A3B5BAF1-300C-4C87-8BBD-BF20A122C61B@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN64B9+=GE2XD4=5tghgpU_qKUBdNw=hG-WpePg_S2rqMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49843E31-EEF6-4200-BFB8-16C3E3064F77@hserus.net>


On 29-Oct-2015, at 6:42 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

>> We ask that surveillance be "proportionate". Should our response to the technology be proportionate too?

A measured and balanced response beats shrill hatemongering any day, but that’s just me.
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 09:29:03 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:29:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
 <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com>

Plus: the right to have root on your own general purpose computing
device.  And to put your own keys there (rather than, say, Apple's).


Seth

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Deirdre Williams
<williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is why the "human right" that concerns me most at the moment is the
> right to say no, the right to choose, the right to differ.
> Somewhere the sense that we have the freedom NOT to click has got lost in a
> compulsion that "this is the only way". "If I don't have Facebook I'll lose
> touch with my family." "This is a 'must have' app". These statements are
> still NOT TRUE, and we should not allow them to become true.
> Admittedly when recently I posted a letter to Barbados, just over 100 miles
> away, I was told that the letter would arrive "in the next two weeks", but
> it did arrive.
> Without the internet the selection procedure which gave this thread its
> subject would not have been possible within the time, but it would still
> have been possible. Might have taken a year or two, but we could have done
> it. :-)
> We are supposed to be using the tool, not the tool using us.
> We have a choice and we should exercise it before it atrophies and
> disappears.
> Deirdre
>
> On 29 October 2015 at 02:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Those are applications that
>>
>> 1. You choose to install
>> 2. You choose to specifically grant those permissions to
>>
>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 11:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>> Avast CEO shared analysis done by company of top 100 applications on
>> Android in the month of September.
>>
>> As per the analysis, 99 per cent of these applications have entire control
>> of mobile phone which means they remotely operate phone as a user does and
>> 92 per cent can view network connections.
>>
>> One out of 10 of top 100 applications can record audio and take pictures
>> and videos and 9 out of 10 are able to read storage content which can modify
>> or delete, as per the report.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 09:40:36 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:40:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
 <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>

Can we add those freedoms to what we are struggling for?
And commit individually and as a group to a "measured and balanced
response"?
I certainly hope so. And I do.
Deirdre

On 29 October 2015 at 09:29, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Plus: the right to have root on your own general purpose computing
> device.  And to put your own keys there (rather than, say, Apple's).
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Deirdre Williams
> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is why the "human right" that concerns me most at the moment is the
> > right to say no, the right to choose, the right to differ.
> > Somewhere the sense that we have the freedom NOT to click has got lost
> in a
> > compulsion that "this is the only way". "If I don't have Facebook I'll
> lose
> > touch with my family." "This is a 'must have' app". These statements are
> > still NOT TRUE, and we should not allow them to become true.
> > Admittedly when recently I posted a letter to Barbados, just over 100
> miles
> > away, I was told that the letter would arrive "in the next two weeks",
> but
> > it did arrive.
> > Without the internet the selection procedure which gave this thread its
> > subject would not have been possible within the time, but it would still
> > have been possible. Might have taken a year or two, but we could have
> done
> > it. :-)
> > We are supposed to be using the tool, not the tool using us.
> > We have a choice and we should exercise it before it atrophies and
> > disappears.
> > Deirdre
> >
> > On 29 October 2015 at 02:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Those are applications that
> >>
> >> 1. You choose to install
> >> 2. You choose to specifically grant those permissions to
> >>
> >> On 29-Oct-2015, at 11:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Avast CEO shared analysis done by company of top 100 applications on
> >> Android in the month of September.
> >>
> >> As per the analysis, 99 per cent of these applications have entire
> control
> >> of mobile phone which means they remotely operate phone as a user does
> and
> >> 92 per cent can view network connections.
> >>
> >> One out of 10 of top 100 applications can record audio and take pictures
> >> and videos and 9 out of 10 are able to read storage content which can
> modify
> >> or delete, as per the report.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To 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
> >
>



-- 
“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/20151029/648464f0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Oct 29 09:46:26 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:16:26 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C3170B0C-6571-4F68-8734-8088104E5945@hserus.net>

Just pointing out that freedom of choice applies.  There are open platforms as well - that run open source operating systems

http://www.ubuntu.com/phone <http://www.ubuntu.com/phone>
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/devices/ <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/devices/> 

[etc etc etc]

thanks
—srs

> On 29-Oct-2015, at 7:10 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Can we add those freedoms to what we are struggling for?
> And commit individually and as a group to a "measured and balanced response"?
> I certainly hope so. And I do.
> Deirdre

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151029/1e87c798/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From milton at gatech.edu  Thu Oct 29 09:56:04 2015
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:56:04 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <00F502C9-26FE-423A-A7CE-62613595E536@difference.com.au>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl>
 <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <00F502C9-26FE-423A-A7CE-62613595E536@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <BN1PR07MB232E71DD9BCCD58220D68C0A1200@BN1PR07MB232.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Well done, David! 
And in particular your point that 

> -----Original Message-----
> 	Confusing the technical and economic and institutional architectures
> like this is a problem, because it leads to confusing the roles of the bodies that
> regulate the various levels.

...is especially important. 

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

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

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

From LB at lucabelli.net  Thu Oct 29 10:14:12 2015
From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:14:12 -0700
Subject: [governance] Meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality
Message-ID: <20151029071412.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.f898f89d49.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151029/b99808b4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Net Neutrality Compendium Cover.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 173874 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151029/b99808b4/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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 10:47:22 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:47:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <C3170B0C-6571-4F68-8734-8088104E5945@hserus.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
 <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com> <C3170B0C-6571-4F68-8734-8088104E5945@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwOLOD9qWnRPq4m7COhg3E+cNtFt8Rd=k4obS5eGafiBA@mail.gmail.com>

Yep.  But the idea of baking universal content control into hardware
(and the network) keeps returning.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> Just pointing out that freedom of choice applies.  There are open platforms
> as well - that run open source operating systems
>
> http://www.ubuntu.com/phone
> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/devices/
>
> [etc etc etc]
>
> thanks
> —srs
>
> On 29-Oct-2015, at 7:10 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Can we add those freedoms to what we are struggling for?
> And commit individually and as a group to a "measured and balanced
> response"?
> I certainly hope so. And I do.
> Deirdre
>
>

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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 10:54:59 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:54:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
 <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com>

I generally avoid appeals to "balance" in the international arena.
Get some actual fundamental rights first; then balance might be a real
discussion.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Deirdre Williams
<williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we add those freedoms to what we are struggling for?
> And commit individually and as a group to a "measured and balanced
> response"?
> I certainly hope so. And I do.
> Deirdre
>
> On 29 October 2015 at 09:29, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Plus: the right to have root on your own general purpose computing
>> device.  And to put your own keys there (rather than, say, Apple's).
>>
>>
>> Seth
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Deirdre Williams
>> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > This is why the "human right" that concerns me most at the moment is the
>> > right to say no, the right to choose, the right to differ.
>> > Somewhere the sense that we have the freedom NOT to click has got lost
>> > in a
>> > compulsion that "this is the only way". "If I don't have Facebook I'll
>> > lose
>> > touch with my family." "This is a 'must have' app". These statements are
>> > still NOT TRUE, and we should not allow them to become true.
>> > Admittedly when recently I posted a letter to Barbados, just over 100
>> > miles
>> > away, I was told that the letter would arrive "in the next two weeks",
>> > but
>> > it did arrive.
>> > Without the internet the selection procedure which gave this thread its
>> > subject would not have been possible within the time, but it would still
>> > have been possible. Might have taken a year or two, but we could have
>> > done
>> > it. :-)
>> > We are supposed to be using the tool, not the tool using us.
>> > We have a choice and we should exercise it before it atrophies and
>> > disappears.
>> > Deirdre
>> >
>> > On 29 October 2015 at 02:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Those are applications that
>> >>
>> >> 1. You choose to install
>> >> 2. You choose to specifically grant those permissions to
>> >>
>> >> On 29-Oct-2015, at 11:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Avast CEO shared analysis done by company of top 100 applications on
>> >> Android in the month of September.
>> >>
>> >> As per the analysis, 99 per cent of these applications have entire
>> >> control
>> >> of mobile phone which means they remotely operate phone as a user does
>> >> and
>> >> 92 per cent can view network connections.
>> >>
>> >> One out of 10 of top 100 applications can record audio and take
>> >> pictures
>> >> and videos and 9 out of 10 are able to read storage content which can
>> >> modify
>> >> or delete, as per the report.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>
>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> >> To 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
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Oct 29 11:06:31 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:36:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net>

Painting ourselves as extremists does our cause a disservice.  And burns bridges with other stakeholder groups that various people try hard to build and maintain.

> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:24 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I generally avoid appeals to "balance" in the international arena.
> Get some actual fundamental rights first; then balance might be a real
> discussion.


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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 11:18:21 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:18:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
 <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com> <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com>

This kind of characterization of what I actually said doesn't help either.  :-)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> Painting ourselves as extremists does our cause a disservice.  And burns bridges with other stakeholder groups that various people try hard to build and maintain.
>
>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:24 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I generally avoid appeals to "balance" in the international arena.
>> Get some actual fundamental rights first; then balance might be a real
>> discussion.
>

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Oct 29 11:29:25 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:59:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com> <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net> <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net>

Hi

There are balanced positions.  And then there are principled stands - which can still be expressed civilly - and as long as they stick to a consistent set of facts, they are to be respected.

I wasn’t referring to you at all when I said that part about burning bridges.  However, appeals to balance that I made were those that tend to what I mentioned above.

I hope I make myself clear - I am not disagreeing with you here.

> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:48 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This kind of characterization of what I actually said doesn't help either.  :-)
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> Painting ourselves as extremists does our cause a disservice.  And burns bridges with other stakeholder groups that various people try hard to build and maintain.
>> 
>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:24 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I generally avoid appeals to "balance" in the international arena.
>>> Get some actual fundamental rights first; then balance might be a real
>>> discussion.


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 29 11:36:45 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:36:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com> <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net> <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com> <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro>

For what its worth, in some places, I, too don’t think balance is the idea.

For instance, starting from the position that in privacy ‘balance’ is the objective means that there’s a finite amount of privacy to go around and it has to get parceled out amongst competing priorities. That’s a zero-sum outlook - why would that be a desirable starting place? Surely what is wanted is a win-win - solutions which are more than the sum of their parts.

Just an example, but top of mind for me when I hear about ‘balance’.

> On 29 Oct 2015, at 16:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> There are balanced positions.  And then there are principled stands - which can still be expressed civilly - and as long as they stick to a consistent set of facts, they are to be respected.
> 
> I wasn’t referring to you at all when I said that part about burning bridges.  However, appeals to balance that I made were those that tend to what I mentioned above.
> 
> I hope I make myself clear - I am not disagreeing with you here.
> 
>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:48 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> This kind of characterization of what I actually said doesn't help either.  :-)
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>> Painting ourselves as extremists does our cause a disservice.  And burns bridges with other stakeholder groups that various people try hard to build and maintain.
>>> 
>>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:24 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I generally avoid appeals to "balance" in the international arena.
>>>> Get some actual fundamental rights first; then balance might be a real
>>>> discussion.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151029/ee709f26/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Oct 29 11:39:12 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:09:12 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com> <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net> <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com> <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net> <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <A34BF773-5A10-41CE-B1C0-FE3EC58361EB@hserus.net>

After a longish career in security I find that there’s a delicate balance between three things - privacy, security and usability.

It is not always possible, or even advisable in certain cases, to achieve an equitable balance between the three, let alone one weighted excessively in favor of one of the three.

There is a substantial body of academic papers on the subject - https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/

> On 29-Oct-2015, at 9:06 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> 
> For what its worth, in some places, I, too don’t think balance is the idea.
> 
> For instance, starting from the position that in privacy ‘balance’ is the objective means that there’s a finite amount of privacy to go around and it has to get parceled out amongst competing priorities. That’s a zero-sum outlook - why would that be a desirable starting place? Surely what is wanted is a win-win - solutions which are more than the sum of their parts.
> 
> Just an example, but top of mind for me when I hear about ‘balance’.


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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 12:05:19 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:05:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
 <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net> <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net> <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBzmw76bnAbtTpXVrydU3g-h_kUwV+RZb4MWw_bp-UEO9g@mail.gmail.com>

Nick: I think balance is not often really a zero sum analysis, not
when in policy discussions.  Almost nobody in a policy discussion is
actually thinking or engaged like that.  It's not a bucket of water,
or nobody would be engaged in any sort of creative way.  Rather,
they'll say x needs to be balanced by our side getting something
"commensurate" y.  Typically making a point of contrast in one of a
manifold of ways to characterize relations in a policy discussion.

Suresh: A little lost on what you're saying and what not, but
appreciate that you are playing a diplomatic function.


Seth

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
<nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> For what its worth, in some places, I, too don’t think balance is the idea.
>
> For instance, starting from the position that in privacy ‘balance’ is the objective means that there’s a finite amount of privacy to go around and it has to get parceled out amongst competing priorities. That’s a zero-sum outlook - why would that be a desirable starting place? Surely what is wanted is a win-win - solutions which are more than the sum of their parts.
>
> Just an example, but top of mind for me when I hear about ‘balance’.
>
>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 16:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> There are balanced positions.  And then there are principled stands - which can still be expressed civilly - and as long as they stick to a consistent set of facts, they are to be respected.
>>
>> I wasn’t referring to you at all when I said that part about burning bridges.  However, appeals to balance that I made were those that tend to what I mentioned above.
>>
>> I hope I make myself clear - I am not disagreeing with you here.
>>
>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:48 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This kind of characterization of what I actually said doesn't help either.  :-)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> Painting ourselves as extremists does our cause a disservice.  And burns bridges with other stakeholder groups that various people try hard to build and maintain.
>>>>
>>>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:24 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I generally avoid appeals to "balance" in the international arena.
>>>>> Get some actual fundamental rights first; then balance might be a real
>>>>> discussion.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Oct 29 12:13:56 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:43:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBzmw76bnAbtTpXVrydU3g-h_kUwV+RZb4MWw_bp-UEO9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com> <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net> <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com> <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net> <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBzmw76bnAbtTpXVrydU3g-h_kUwV+RZb4MWw_bp-UEO9g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FE1BA5D7-E94E-4533-97D2-B707486CA7B1@hserus.net>

All I’m saying is that especially in a privacy or security related discussion - it’d entirely depend on the context, and “commensurate” might actually be a good thing, from an engineering / usability etc standpoint.

> On 29-Oct-2015, at 9:35 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Rather,
> they'll say x needs to be balanced by our side getting something
> "commensurate" y.  Typically making a point of contrast in one of a
> manifold of ways to characterize relations in a policy discussion.
> 
> Suresh: A little lost on what you're saying and what not, but
> appreciate that you are playing a diplomatic function.


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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 12:16:34 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:16:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBzmw76bnAbtTpXVrydU3g-h_kUwV+RZb4MWw_bp-UEO9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
 <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net> <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net> <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro>
 <CAJkfFBzmw76bnAbtTpXVrydU3g-h_kUwV+RZb4MWw_bp-UEO9g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBx+-+gx1FTDJjiHMJi4jNysMeBiuSNOaCAnuV4SBTcamw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick: I think balance is not often really a zero sum analysis, not
> when in policy discussions.  Almost nobody in a policy discussion is
> actually thinking or engaged like that.  It's not a bucket of water,
> or nobody would be engaged in any sort of creative way.  Rather,
> they'll say x needs to be balanced by our side getting something
> "commensurate" y.  Typically making a point of contrast in one of a
> manifold of ways to characterize relations in a policy discussion.


I think there's a sort of endpoint in mind where all parties think
they've sort of covered the space and gotten away taken care of.

But none of this is to the point of what I said, which is really that
you aren't actually sitting at the table unless you've gotten a way to
get the kind of standing we do as regular folks inside our own
countries.  Balance is just a truism stating the weak standard that
applies to we folks in the international arena, since we do not have
any real checks in place (The EU got some recently in the area of
surveillance though!  :-) )  (And then didn't do well on the telecom
front  :-(  )


Seth



> Suresh: A little lost on what you're saying and what not, but
> appreciate that you are playing a diplomatic function.
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>> For what its worth, in some places, I, too don’t think balance is the idea.
>>
>> For instance, starting from the position that in privacy ‘balance’ is the objective means that there’s a finite amount of privacy to go around and it has to get parceled out amongst competing priorities. That’s a zero-sum outlook - why would that be a desirable starting place? Surely what is wanted is a win-win - solutions which are more than the sum of their parts.
>>
>> Just an example, but top of mind for me when I hear about ‘balance’.
>>
>>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 16:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> There are balanced positions.  And then there are principled stands - which can still be expressed civilly - and as long as they stick to a consistent set of facts, they are to be respected.
>>>
>>> I wasn’t referring to you at all when I said that part about burning bridges.  However, appeals to balance that I made were those that tend to what I mentioned above.
>>>
>>> I hope I make myself clear - I am not disagreeing with you here.
>>>
>>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:48 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This kind of characterization of what I actually said doesn't help either.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>>> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>> Painting ourselves as extremists does our cause a disservice.  And burns bridges with other stakeholder groups that various people try hard to build and maintain.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 8:24 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I generally avoid appeals to "balance" in the international arena.
>>>>>> Get some actual fundamental rights first; then balance might be a real
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>

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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 12:36:18 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:36:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <FE1BA5D7-E94E-4533-97D2-B707486CA7B1@hserus.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
 <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net> <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net> <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro>
 <CAJkfFBzmw76bnAbtTpXVrydU3g-h_kUwV+RZb4MWw_bp-UEO9g@mail.gmail.com> <FE1BA5D7-E94E-4533-97D2-B707486CA7B1@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwtjvGJDGdjC+NEKdoOYxCRSe0FveaYAx0_As2k_Om7Lw@mail.gmail.com>

I was just redirecting Nick on his characterization.  Especially many
of these issues can't really be characterized that way.  It's true (as
Nick pretty much observes) that debates often go in those absurd
directions -- but that's not a policy discussion; it's a frame for
public discourse that doesn't actually engage in real practical terms.
Like there might be a public forum with talking heads on one of these
issues framed that way, but one knows it's not going anywhere as soon
as that framing arises.


Seth

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> All I’m saying is that especially in a privacy or security related discussion - it’d entirely depend on the context, and “commensurate” might actually be a good thing, from an engineering / usability etc standpoint.
>
>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 9:35 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Rather,
>> they'll say x needs to be balanced by our side getting something
>> "commensurate" y.  Typically making a point of contrast in one of a
>> manifold of ways to characterize relations in a policy discussion.
>>
>> Suresh: A little lost on what you're saying and what not, but
>> appreciate that you are playing a diplomatic function.
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 29 13:09:46 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:09:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <A34BF773-5A10-41CE-B1C0-FE3EC58361EB@hserus.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com> <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net> <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com> <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net> <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro> <A34BF773-5A10-41CE-B1C0-FE3EC58361EB@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <A08FD6E6-5C83-485C-8476-9D51D1C3734F@consensus.pro>

Dear Suresh,

I take your point but my point is one of starting places and objectives. If you start out looking for balance, you’re starting out from a conception that you will end up with a win/lose arrangement. I think this is just the wrong paradigm to start from when it comes to human rights issues in particular, but not only those. Does that mean we should look to protect privacy at all costs? No. It does mean that we should start from the premise that we are looking for something that is more than the sum of its parts, and only settle for a zero-sum result if that’s the only possible result.

Aim high. Aiming low means you will never achieve high ;)

Finally, this may quickly go into the weeds and the list as a whole may not be interested in going there.

> On 29 Oct 2015, at 16:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> After a longish career in security I find that there’s a delicate balance between three things - privacy, security and usability.
> 
> It is not always possible, or even advisable in certain cases, to achieve an equitable balance between the three, let alone one weighted excessively in favor of one of the three.
> 
> There is a substantial body of academic papers on the subject - https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/
> 
>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 9:06 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>> 
>> For what its worth, in some places, I, too don’t think balance is the idea.
>> 
>> For instance, starting from the position that in privacy ‘balance’ is the objective means that there’s a finite amount of privacy to go around and it has to get parceled out amongst competing priorities. That’s a zero-sum outlook - why would that be a desirable starting place? Surely what is wanted is a win-win - solutions which are more than the sum of their parts.
>> 
>> Just an example, but top of mind for me when I hear about ‘balance’.
> 

-------------- 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/20151029/ee1f96f0/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Oct 29 13:47:51 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:17:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <A08FD6E6-5C83-485C-8476-9D51D1C3734F@consensus.pro>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com> <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net> <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com> <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net> <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro> <A34BF773-5A10-41CE-B1C0-FE3EC58361EB@hserus.net> <A08FD6E6-5C83-485C-8476-9D51D1C3734F@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <A5A8ED63-30BE-493E-B92B-C31C63BC607B@hserus.net>

I finally see your (and I suspect seth's) point - and that boils down to taking some principled stands that are non negotiable.  Still with those boundaries drawn there is still scope for engagement, and alternate perspectives.

--srs

> On 29-Oct-2015, at 10:39 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> 
> Dear Suresh,
> 
> I take your point but my point is one of starting places and objectives. If you start out looking for balance, you’re starting out from a conception that you will end up with a win/lose arrangement. I think this is just the wrong paradigm to start from when it comes to human rights issues in particular, but not only those. Does that mean we should look to protect privacy at all costs? No. It does mean that we should start from the premise that we are looking for something that is more than the sum of its parts, and only settle for a zero-sum result if that’s the only possible result.
> 
> Aim high. Aiming low means you will never achieve high ;)
> 
> Finally, this may quickly go into the weeds and the list as a whole may not be interested in going there.
> 
>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 16:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> 
>> After a longish career in security I find that there’s a delicate balance between three things - privacy, security and usability.
>> 
>> It is not always possible, or even advisable in certain cases, to achieve an equitable balance between the three, let alone one weighted excessively in favor of one of the three.
>> 
>> There is a substantial body of academic papers on the subject - https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/
>> 
>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 9:06 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>> 
>>> For what its worth, in some places, I, too don’t think balance is the idea.
>>> 
>>> For instance, starting from the position that in privacy ‘balance’ is the objective means that there’s a finite amount of privacy to go around and it has to get parceled out amongst competing priorities. That’s a zero-sum outlook - why would that be a desirable starting place? Surely what is wanted is a win-win - solutions which are more than the sum of their parts.
>>> 
>>> Just an example, but top of mind for me when I hear about ‘balance’.
>> 
> 

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

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Thu Oct 29 14:31:30 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:31:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <A5A8ED63-30BE-493E-B92B-C31C63BC607B@hserus.net>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com>
 <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net>
 <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net>
 <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net> <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net> <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro>
 <A34BF773-5A10-41CE-B1C0-FE3EC58361EB@hserus.net> <A08FD6E6-5C83-485C-8476-9D51D1C3734F@consensus.pro>
 <A5A8ED63-30BE-493E-B92B-C31C63BC607B@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBzNpHen91svqHEKhbtFnRgJq13eGBLhcE=7Aa5+MR0qAA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> I finally see your (and I suspect seth's) point - and that boils down to taking some principled stands that are non negotiable.  Still with those boundaries drawn there is still scope for engagement, and alternate perspectives.


Aside from the general fact that in some areas you have to draw a
line, you also need rights to actually work as limits on governments.
That's one of the most important nuts to crack.  You get strict
scrutiny if you do something like the EU did; you get a balancing
standard -- at best -- when you try to "negotiate" rights in the
international forum.  I avoid talking about "balance" until we're in a
position of actually operating on that basis.  If we're going to be
fuddy duddy about rights (say, because terror), then we have to be
clear in these terms about what we're doing.


Seth


> --srs
>
>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 10:39 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Suresh,
>>
>> I take your point but my point is one of starting places and objectives. If you start out looking for balance, you’re starting out from a conception that you will end up with a win/lose arrangement. I think this is just the wrong paradigm to start from when it comes to human rights issues in particular, but not only those. Does that mean we should look to protect privacy at all costs? No. It does mean that we should start from the premise that we are looking for something that is more than the sum of its parts, and only settle for a zero-sum result if that’s the only possible result.
>>
>> Aim high. Aiming low means you will never achieve high ;)
>>
>> Finally, this may quickly go into the weeds and the list as a whole may not be interested in going there.
>>
>>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 16:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> After a longish career in security I find that there’s a delicate balance between three things - privacy, security and usability.
>>>
>>> It is not always possible, or even advisable in certain cases, to achieve an equitable balance between the three, let alone one weighted excessively in favor of one of the three.
>>>
>>> There is a substantial body of academic papers on the subject - https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/
>>>
>>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 9:06 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For what its worth, in some places, I, too don’t think balance is the idea.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, starting from the position that in privacy ‘balance’ is the objective means that there’s a finite amount of privacy to go around and it has to get parceled out amongst competing priorities. That’s a zero-sum outlook - why would that be a desirable starting place? Surely what is wanted is a win-win - solutions which are more than the sum of their parts.
>>>>
>>>> Just an example, but top of mind for me when I hear about ‘balance’.
>>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 Oct 29 14:45:49 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:15:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBzNpHen91svqHEKhbtFnRgJq13eGBLhcE=7Aa5+MR0qAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <5630D636.7010401@itforchange.net> <5631B590.8010403@itforchange.net> <38BE081D-DCEA-45EA-851B-87DFA42ED5B0@hserus.net> <CAMz5XN75dTZ59vPw-W==znHmNyv9uYv8mN1q+8tRAHMDZTZORw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBxQ1qGeXynPQY7-6BQ0pMs7d7M4L=KYqHT36qN-uU4vSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7K8SPita-=sLrtyS+fZ5iyCFz2bpeT+GRLBotokvHQ1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBy4z8bhOeUyQDxkhvOwy7amcY-WtCf2qUYwqeDJcRqRXg@mail.gmail.com> <3ED2E5A2-91C8-49A9-B05A-8709984217EC@hserus.net> <CAJkfFBwQ95bsJtaRpsg5ZYMWe7Ky+Jumj_r_e-jLxJohOSWvew@mail.gmail.com> <9A183B7F-919E-4236-B4D9-9800E13E0081@hserus.net> <B00C47C4-1A59-466C-AC7C-7021FBA2A2E4@consensus.pro> <A34BF773-5A10-41CE-B1C0-FE3EC58361EB@hserus.net> <A08FD6E6-5C83-485C-8476-9D51D1C3734F@consensus.pro> <A5A8ED63-30BE-493E-B92B-C31C63BC60!
 7B@hserus
 .net> <CAJkfFBzNpHen91svqHEKhbtFnRgJq13eGBLhcE=7Aa5+MR0qAA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7E567584-ADB4-4C15-AA82-DDF9EB73367B@hserus.net>

Fair enough - we actually agree there 

--srs

> On 30-Oct-2015, at 12:01 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> I finally see your (and I suspect seth's) point - and that boils down to taking some principled stands that are non negotiable.  Still with those boundaries drawn there is still scope for engagement, and alternate perspectives.
> 
> 
> Aside from the general fact that in some areas you have to draw a
> line, you also need rights to actually work as limits on governments.
> That's one of the most important nuts to crack.  You get strict
> scrutiny if you do something like the EU did; you get a balancing
> standard -- at best -- when you try to "negotiate" rights in the
> international forum.  I avoid talking about "balance" until we're in a
> position of actually operating on that basis.  If we're going to be
> fuddy duddy about rights (say, because terror), then we have to be
> clear in these terms about what we're doing.
> 
> 
> Seth
> 
> 
>> --srs
>> 
>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 10:39 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Suresh,
>>> 
>>> I take your point but my point is one of starting places and objectives. If you start out looking for balance, you’re starting out from a conception that you will end up with a win/lose arrangement. I think this is just the wrong paradigm to start from when it comes to human rights issues in particular, but not only those. Does that mean we should look to protect privacy at all costs? No. It does mean that we should start from the premise that we are looking for something that is more than the sum of its parts, and only settle for a zero-sum result if that’s the only possible result.
>>> 
>>> Aim high. Aiming low means you will never achieve high ;)
>>> 
>>> Finally, this may quickly go into the weeds and the list as a whole may not be interested in going there.
>>> 
>>>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 16:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> After a longish career in security I find that there’s a delicate balance between three things - privacy, security and usability.
>>>> 
>>>> It is not always possible, or even advisable in certain cases, to achieve an equitable balance between the three, let alone one weighted excessively in favor of one of the three.
>>>> 
>>>> There is a substantial body of academic papers on the subject - https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/
>>>> 
>>>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 9:06 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> For what its worth, in some places, I, too don’t think balance is the idea.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For instance, starting from the position that in privacy ‘balance’ is the objective means that there’s a finite amount of privacy to go around and it has to get parceled out amongst competing priorities. That’s a zero-sum outlook - why would that be a desirable starting place? Surely what is wanted is a win-win - solutions which are more than the sum of their parts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just an example, but top of mind for me when I hear about ‘balance’.
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From director at ipop.org.pk  Thu Oct 29 17:13:01 2015
From: director at ipop.org.pk (Arzak Khan)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:13:01 +0000
Subject: [governance] [global-nn] Meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on
 Network Neutrality
In-Reply-To:  <20151029071412.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.f898f89d49.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
References:  <20151029071412.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.f898f89d49.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <BLU180-W3658049F54AA914E4A8AFFF200@phx.gbl>

Thank you Luca. Looking forward to it. 
 
 
Best,
 
Arzak
 
From: LB at lucabelli.net
To: nncoalition at mailman.edri.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; global-nn at lists.riseup.net
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:14:12 -0700
Subject: [global-nn] Meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality

Dear all (apologies for cross posting)As the IGF is approaching I would like to share the invitation to the Annual meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, to be held on 10 November from 11:00 to 12:30 in room 6.Please, find below the short description and the agenda of the event.Please, do not hesitate to share this email.
Best regards, Luca 



Annual Meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality

10
November, 11:00-12:30

 

Over the past two years, the network
neutrality debate has become a leading priority for both national and international
policy makers. 
The panellists will explore issues such as the
relevance of net neutrality for consumers, the compatibility of zero rating
offerings with the network neutrality principle and the elaboration of
sustainable approaches to foster non-discriminatory Internet traffic management.
Importantly, panellist interventions will be based on their contribution
to the annual report of the DCNN, included in Part III of the Net
Neutrality Compendium, a book encompassing the three-year-long work of
the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality that will be presented and
distributed during the event. 

 

Meeting
Agenda

 

-        
Introduction and moderation: Luca Belli, Center for
Technology and Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas

 

-        
Keynote: Vint Cerf, Google

 

-        
Roundtable with the authors of the 3rd
DCNN annual report, included in Part III of the Net Neutrality Compendium:

o  
Chis Marsden, Sussex University

o  
Elise Lindeberg, Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority  

o  
René Arnold, WIK Consult

o  
Konstantinos Stylianou, University of
Leeds 

o  
Primavera De Filippi, Université Paris 2 & Berkman Center

o  
Nathalia Foditsch, American University

 

-        
Presentation of the Input Document on
Network Neutrality, to be discussed as a DCNN outcome during
the Main Session on Dynamic Coalition outcomes. Luca Belli, Center for Technology and Society at Fundação Getulio
Vargas

 

-        
Open Debate with the participants

 

 

 




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Luca Belli, PhD Researcher, Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de Janeiro Founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality Co-founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151029/aa99921a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From niel.harper at ieee.org  Thu Oct 29 18:27:20 2015
From: niel.harper at ieee.org (Niel Harper)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:27:20 +0900
Subject: [governance] Meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Network
 Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <20151029071412.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.f898f89d49.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
References: <20151029071412.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.f898f89d49.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <CAOKYo7EPYSDZNgvDKzR+myO0Bh5eOvZTbijnyAP5npOvStHFaQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Luca,

Do you need any support from the Ambassadors?

Regards,


On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:14 PM, <LB at lucabelli.net> wrote:

> Dear all (apologies for cross posting)
> As the IGF is approaching I would like to share the invitation to the
> Annual meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, to be held
> on *10 November from 11:00 to 12:30 in room 6*.
> Please, find below the short description and the agenda of the event.
> Please, do not hesitate to share this email.
> Best regards,
> Luca
>
>
> *Annual Meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality*
> *10 November, 11:00-12:30*
>
> Over the past two years, the network neutrality debate has become a
> leading priority for both national and international policy makers.
>
> The panellists will explore issues such as the relevance of net neutrality
> for consumers, the compatibility of zero rating offerings with the network
> neutrality principle and the elaboration of sustainable approaches to
> foster non-discriminatory Internet traffic management. Importantly,
> panellist interventions will be based on their contribution to the annual
> report of the DCNN, included in Part III of the *Net Neutrality
> Compendium
> <http://www.amazon.co.uk/Net-Neutrality-Compendium-2016-Competition/dp/3319264249>*,
> a book encompassing the three-year-long work of the Dynamic Coalition on
> Network Neutrality that will be presented and distributed during the event.
>
> *Meeting Agenda*
>
> -         Introduction and moderation: *Luca Belli**,* Center for
> Technology and Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas
>
> -         Keynote: *Vint Cerf,* Google
>
> -         Roundtable with the authors of the 3rd DCNN annual report,
> included in Part III of the Net Neutrality Compendium:
> o   *Chis Marsden*, Sussex University
> o   *Elise Lindeberg*, Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority
> o   *René Arnold*, WIK Consult
> o   *Konstantinos Stylianou,* University of Leeds
> *o   **Primavera De Filippi**, Université Paris 2 & *Berkman Center
> o   *Nathalia Foditsch*, American University
>
> -         Presentation of the Input Document on Network Neutrality
> <http://review.intgovforum.org/igf-2015/dynamic-coalitions/input-document-on-network-neutrality/>,
> to be discussed as a DCNN outcome during the Main Session on Dynamic
> Coalition outcomes. *Luca Belli**,* Center for Technology and Society at
> Fundação Getulio Vargas
>
> -         Open Debate with the participants
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Luca Belli*, PhD
> Researcher, Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de Janeiro
> Founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality
> Co-founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
*Niel Harper*
Barbados: +(246) 424 3809
London: +44 207 193 9826
Mobile: +(246) 243 3818
Email: niel.harper at ieee.org
Website: http://nielharper.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151030/2a825ba5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Oct 30 09:46:48 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:16:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening
 speakers
In-Reply-To: <BN1PR07MB232E71DD9BCCD58220D68C0A1200@BN1PR07MB232.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <e09w7v0h6i9kd0lntv4pfeb0.1445699487462@email.android.com> <BLU180-W3814A77A2134B337F6A508FF250@phx.gbl> <562BBDA7.6000304@itforchange.net> <DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <00F502C9-26FE-423A-A7CE-62613595E536@difference.com.au> <BN1PR07MB232E71DD9BCCD58220D68C0A1200@BN1PR07MB232.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <563374C8.4090609@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 29 October 2015 07:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> Well done, David! 
> And in particular your point that 

Too much here seems to be hanging on one point that I do not understand
what is a p2p technical architecture :). Even though I have said that I
did know it, and I would expect people to take such a statement at face
value. I keep hoping that this Northern project of building the capacity
of ignorant people in the South would have some expiry date somewhere,
but it does not seem to.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 	Confusing the technical and economic and institutional architectures
>> like this is a problem, because it leads to confusing the roles of the bodies that
>> regulate the various levels.
> ...is especially important. 

This point is rather more substantial. However, still an allegation of a
'confusion' that I do not have. In fact, I myself insist that we do not
use technical governance to leverage political solutions, and also, as
importantly, if not more, not take simplistic and essentialist technical
stances in areas that are essentially political, like the area of
centralisation or decentralisation of power and control over the
Internet essentially is.

It is rather more frustrating when technical actors, or worse, political
actors expediently taking a technical cover, insist on some things being
'technical facts' when the issue is really political. In this I agree
with the above assertion that we should avoid confusion about the role
of bodies that regulate at various levels. There is today too much of
'technical' intrusions in Internet related public policy matters, a lot
of which serves to defend and legitimise status quoist
political-economic positions and advantages. For instance, I have a long
history on this list, as elsewhere, advocating that we avoid exporting
models of governance that may be suitable in the technical space to the
political, or Internet related public policy, space. ICANN is a great
advocate of such an export, the Net Mundial Initiative being expressly
that. Even ISOC recently advocated that Internet related public policy
issues be addressed taking lessons from how technical bodies like the
IETF work. This, David, I am sure, you would take these as instances of
what " leads to confusing the roles of the bodies that regulate the
various levels".

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/20151030/2310927c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dmitry.epstein at gmail.com  Fri Oct 30 10:24:47 2015
From: dmitry.epstein at gmail.com (Dmitry Epstein)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:24:47 -0500
Subject: [governance] CFP: Internet governance ICA pre-conference
Message-ID: <CA+SHEVhLtWAiLdWqb6qsi4Zxju=d8dM5Y+N4ezyG2fhGExmEYA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

I know that everyone is now busy with preparations for the IGF, but I want
to put it out for you to consider once things calm down.

Please find attached a call for papers for an academic Internet governance
pre-conference for the annual meeting of the International Communication
Association. This pre-conference is organized by GigaNet. The call is also
available online <http://giga-net.org/page/ica2016intgov>.

Please consider submitting and feel free to distribute widely.

Thank you!
Dmitry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151030/65587813/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICA2016GigaNetPreconferenceCFP.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 209231 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151030/65587813/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 joly at punkcast.com  Fri Oct 30 13:02:45 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:02:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_FRIDAY=3A_The_High_Politics_of?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_Internet_Governance_=E2=80=93_WSIS+10_Panel_=40ColumbiaSIPA?=
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk3xdJ7EhJNYW+sm9JTqNT4FD1B1kMJFjMBXEzKoxptG=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk3xdJ7EhJNYW+sm9JTqNT4FD1B1kMJFjMBXEzKoxptG=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3dAkdYPW8DfKcXYaiMvjJFtoeoBZ0s0+RA=Dx+ziNdWg@mail.gmail.com>

This is just starting. H. E. Lana Nusseibeh, Ambassador, Permanent Mission
of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to the United Nations has been added to
the peaker line-up and the event url has changed to
https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/events/the-high-politics-of-internet-governance

>
>
>
> joly posted: "On Friday October 30 2015 Columbia University's School of
> International and Public Affairs will present a lunchtime panel The High
> Politics of Internet Governance: Global Policy Conflicts a Decade after the
> World Summit on the Information Society. On Dece"
>
> [image: SIPA WSIS+10] <http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501>On *Friday
> October 30 2015* Columbia University's *School of International and
> Public Affairs <https://sipa.columbia.edu/>* will present a lunchtime
> panel *The High Politics of Internet Governance: Global Policy Conflicts
> a Decade after the World Summit on the Information Society
> <https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/events/the-high-politics-of-internet-governance-global-policy-conflicts-a-decade-after-the-world-summit-on>*.
> On December 15-16 in New York, the United Nations is convening a *General
> Assembly High-Level Meeting
> <http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/GA-High-Level-Meeting> *to review the goals
> of the World Summit on the Information Society after a decade (WSIS+10) and
> to craft a future vision for the information society. Input from various
> stakeholders has raised questions about the future of the Internet and who
> will run it. This Columbia SIPA panel will explain the implications of this
> dialog for Internet sustainability, security, and freedom, and how this
> high-level discussion connects to the planned transition of U.S. oversight
> in Internet governance. Moderator: *Merit Janow*, Dean, School of
> International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Columbia University. Panel: *Laura
> DeNardis*, Professor, American University, and Senior Research Scholar,
> Columbia SIPA; *Gordon Goldstein*, Managing Director and Head of External
> Affairs, Silver Lake Group; *Ambassador David Gross*, Partner, Wiley
> Rein; *Veni Markovski*, Vice President, ICANN; *Ambassador Janis Mazeiks*,
> Ambassador, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Latvia to the United
> Nations. The event will be webcast live via the *Columbia SIPA Livestream
> Channel <http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501>*.
>
>
>
>
>
> *What: The High Politics of Internet Governance: Global Policy Conflicts a
> Decade after the World Summit on the Information Society
> <https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/events/the-high-politics-of-internet-governance-global-policy-conflicts-a-decade-after-the-world-summit-on>
> Where: School of International and Public Affairs, NYC When: Friday October
> 30 2015 1pm-2pm EDT | 17:00-18:00 UTC Webcast:
> http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501
> <http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501> Twitter: @ColumbiaSIPA
> <https://twitter.com/search?q=%40ColumbiaSIPA> | #WSIS10
> <https://twitter.com/hashtag/WSIS10>*
>
>
> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8152#respond>   See all comments
> <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8152#comments>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *​Permalink*
>
> http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8152
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151030/5313c885/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Oct 30 15:15:42 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 06:15:42 +1100
Subject: [governance] CSCG nominations for civil society speakers at IGF
Message-ID: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>

Below are the two nominations from Civil Society Coordination Group for speakers for this years IGF opening and closing ceremonies. They were chosen from a field of 20 names submitted from various civil society coalitions, and have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that any of the 20 names submitted could have represented us admirably, and that it was a tough decision for the CSCG members to come up with 2 names.

Joana Varon (Brazil) – opening ceremony – joana at varonferraz.com

Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) – closing ceremony – nadine at apcwomen.org


For those who don’t know them,


Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project coordinator at the Centre for Technology and Society from Fundação Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro

Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese feminist activist and grasssroots worker who leads Association for Progressive Communication (APC)'s sexual 
rights work. 


We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to represent civil society. They have both been informed of their nominations.




Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination Group)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151031/4d2d1349/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Oct 30 15:19:18 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:19:18 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] CSCG nominations for civil society speakers at IGF
References: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A2A337@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

This is a great choice and will help to bring gender balance in both ceremonies.

wolfgang





-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter
Gesendet: Fr 30.10.2015 20:15
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org
Betreff: [governance] CSCG nominations for civil society speakers at IGF
 
Below are the two nominations from Civil Society Coordination Group for speakers for this years IGF opening and closing ceremonies. They were chosen from a field of 20 names submitted from various civil society coalitions, and have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that any of the 20 names submitted could have represented us admirably, and that it was a tough decision for the CSCG members to come up with 2 names.

Joana Varon (Brazil) - opening ceremony - joana at varonferraz..com

Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) - closing ceremony - nadine at apcwomen.org


For those who don't know them,


Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project coordinator at the Centre for Technology and Society from Fundação Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro

Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese feminist activist and grasssroots worker who leads Association for Progressive Communication (APC)'s sexual 
rights work. 


We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to represent civil society. They have both been informed of their nominations.




Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination Group)


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

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

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

From udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng  Fri Oct 30 15:32:32 2015
From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:32:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] CSCG nominations for civil society speakers at IGF
In-Reply-To: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>
References: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAOz-jXRb_=PzV6o_qSJ+tjoupyr6XpeKOfzzvJrD9FEQazdH_Q@mail.gmail.com>

*[image: Inline image 3]*

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Below are the two nominations from Civil Society Coordination Group for
> speakers for this years IGF opening and closing ceremonies. They were
> chosen from a field of 20 names submitted from various civil society
> coalitions, and have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that
> any of the 20 names submitted could have represented us admirably, and that
> it was a tough decision for the CSCG members to come up with 2 names.
>
> Joana Varon (Brazil) – opening ceremony – joana at varonferraz.com
>
> Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) – closing ceremony – nadine at apcwomen.org
>
>
> For those who don’t know them,
>
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project coordinator at the Centre
> for Technology and Society from Fundação Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro
>
> Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese feminist activist and grasssroots worker who
> leads Association for Progressive Communication (APC)'s sexual
> rights work.
>
>
> We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to represent
> civil society. They have both been informed of their nominations.
>
>
>
>
> Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination Group)
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 

WebRep
Overall rating
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151030/8548b9c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 56562 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151030/8548b9c4/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joana at varonferraz.com  Fri Oct 30 16:11:56 2015
From: joana at varonferraz.com (joana at varonferraz.com)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:11:56 -0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CSCG nominations for civil society
 speakers at IGF
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjzvb+VQWZOd-orXpzxczv8B==fNhUtFCCEq9HKdSya9Cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>
 <CAJTVAjzvb+VQWZOd-orXpzxczv8B==fNhUtFCCEq9HKdSya9Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c43882cc-fb96-4a8d-8db4-41e7af1bcd77@varonferraz.com>

Thanks, Ian and everyone!

I cannot express how honored I'm for this nomination. I hope I can respond to the task with the bright it entails. 

As soon as nomination is confirmed I will share a pad for people to bring inputs. Will already be dreaming with some insights.

Just a correction in my institutional presentation as I'm not CTS for more then 1 and half year now :):

I'm founder director and creative chaos catalyst of Coding Rights, a women lead think-and-do tank with the mission to bring hackers, geeks, artists, researchers and activists together to protect, promote and mainstream digital rights and empower women on ICTs. More on @codingrights or codingrights.org (still temporary work in progress)

Thank you once again and have safe travels to João Pessoa. We will be waiting for you all to cheer with caipirinhas or fresh coconut water. 

Kind regards,

Joana

On 30 Oct 2015 17:36, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:

Congratulations to both, proud to be represented by these women.


Many thanks to the CSCG for their work - excellent choices. 


Best wishes,

Lea


On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

Below are the two nominations from Civil Society Coordination Group for speakers for this years IGF opening and closing ceremonies. They were chosen from a field of 20 names submitted from various civil society coalitions, and have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that any of the 20 names submitted could have represented us admirably, and that it was a tough decision for the CSCG members to come up with 2 names.

 

Joana Varon (Brazil) – opening ceremony – joana at varonferraz.com

 

Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) – closing ceremony – nadine at apcwomen.org

 

 

For those who don’t know them,

 

 

Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project coordinator at the Centre for Technology and Society from Fundação Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro

 

Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese feminist activist and grasssroots worker who leads Association for Progressive Communication (APC)'s sexual 
rights work. 

 

 

We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to represent civil society. They have both been informed of their nominations.

 

 

 

 

Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination Group)


____________________________________________________________
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/20151030/569b98fb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From director at ipop.org.pk  Fri Oct 30 16:24:27 2015
From: director at ipop.org.pk (Arzak Khan)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:24:27 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CSCG nominations for civil society
 speakers at IGF
In-Reply-To: <c43882cc-fb96-4a8d-8db4-41e7af1bcd77@varonferraz.com>
References:  <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>,<CAJTVAjzvb+VQWZOd-orXpzxczv8B==fNhUtFCCEq9HKdSya9Cw@mail.gmail.com>,<c43882cc-fb96-4a8d-8db4-41e7af1bcd77@varonferraz.com>
Message-ID: <BLU180-W75891A88B6810BAFE79956FF2F0@phx.gbl>

Congrats Joana!  Very proud of your work and I am sure that you will do an excellent job at representing all the voices from Civil Society.
 
Best Wishes,
 
Arzak Khan 
 
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:11:56 -0200
From: joana at varonferraz.com
To: lea at gp-digital.org
CC: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; forum at justnetcoalition.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] CSCG nominations for civil society speakers at IGF

Thanks, Ian and everyone!
I cannot express how honored I'm for this nomination. I hope I can respond to the task with the bright it entails. 
As soon as nomination is confirmed I will share a pad for people to bring inputs. Will already be dreaming with some insights.
Just a correction in my institutional presentation as I'm not CTS for more then 1 and half year now :):
I'm founder director and creative chaos catalyst of Coding Rights, a women lead think-and-do tank with the mission to bring hackers, geeks, artists, researchers and activists together to protect, promote and mainstream digital rights and empower women on ICTs. More on @codingrights or codingrights.org (still temporary work in progress)
Thank you once again and have safe travels to João Pessoa. We will be waiting for you all to cheer with caipirinhas or fresh coconut water. 
Kind regards,
Joana


On 30 Oct 2015 17:36, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
Congratulations to both, proud to be represented by these women.
Many thanks to the CSCG for their work - excellent choices. 
Best wishes,Lea

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:




Below are the two nominations from Civil Society Coordination Group for 
speakers for this years IGF opening and closing ceremonies. They were chosen 
from a field of 20 names submitted from various civil society coalitions, and 
have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that any of the 20 names 
submitted could have represented us admirably, and that it was a tough decision 
for the CSCG members to come up with 2 names.
 
Joana Varon (Brazil) – opening ceremony – joana at varonferraz.com
 
Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) – closing ceremony – nadine at apcwomen.org
 
 
For those who don’t know them,
 
 
Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project 
coordinator at the Centre for Technology and Society from Fundação Getulio 
Vargas in Rio de Janeiro
 Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese 
feminist activist and grasssroots worker who leads Association for Progressive 
Communication (APC)'s sexual 
rights work. 
 
 
We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to represent civil 
society. They have both been informed of their nominations.
 
 
 
 
Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination 
Group)

____________________________________________________________

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/20151030/1241ad15/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From remmyn at gmail.com  Fri Oct 30 17:01:35 2015
From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:01:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] CSCG nominations for civil society speakers at IGF
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A2A337@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A2A337@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAMc__oozPb7YCx04p+4=f7cmeS2+mvYUbhZFHf0F-uSg=0xcAw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Ian
Wishing them exciting session.
Regards
Remmy Nweke
@ITRealms

____
REMMY NWEKE,  Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd [*Multiple-award winning medium*]
(DigitalSENSE Business News
<http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; ITREALMS
<http://www.itrealms.com.ng>, NaijaAgroNet <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng>)
Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos
M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms
<http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
<https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria‎>
NDSF 2016
<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153112418861429&set=a.119216361428.104226.716351428&type=1>
_________________________________________________________________
*Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments
are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended
only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal
responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do
not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make
any copies. Violators may face court persecution.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:19 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> This is a great choice and will help to bring gender balance in both
> ceremonies.
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter
> Gesendet: Fr 30.10.2015 20:15
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
> forum at justnetcoalition.org
> Betreff: [governance] CSCG nominations for civil society speakers at IGF
>
> Below are the two nominations from Civil Society Coordination Group for
> speakers for this years IGF opening and closing ceremonies. They were
> chosen from a field of 20 names submitted from various civil society
> coalitions, and have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that
> any of the 20 names submitted could have represented us admirably, and that
> it was a tough decision for the CSCG members to come up with 2 names.
>
> Joana Varon (Brazil) - opening ceremony - joana at varonferraz..com
>
> Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) - closing ceremony - nadine at apcwomen.org
>
>
> For those who don't know them,
>
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project coordinator at the Centre
> for Technology and Society from Fundação Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro
>
> Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese feminist activist and grasssroots worker who
> leads Association for Progressive Communication (APC)'s sexual
> rights work.
>
>
> We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to represent
> civil society. They have both been informed of their nominations.
>
>
>
>
> Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination Group)
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151030/48f95e94/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Fri Oct 30 17:30:27 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 05:30:27 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CSCG nominations for civil society
 speakers at IGF
In-Reply-To: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>
References: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <A56BB4D3-0671-45E2-8DF7-E10D1B228212@difference.com.au>

Great choices.

David

> On 31 Oct 2015, at 3:15 am, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> Below are the two nominations from Civil Society Coordination Group for speakers for this years IGF opening and closing ceremonies. They were chosen from a field of 20 names submitted from various civil society coalitions, and have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that any of the 20 names submitted could have represented us admirably, and that it was a tough decision for the CSCG members to come up with 2 names.
>  
> Joana Varon (Brazil) – opening ceremony – joana at varonferraz.com <>
>  
> Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) – closing ceremony – nadine at apcwomen.org <>
>  
>  
> For those who don’t know them,
>  
>  
> Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project coordinator at the Centre for Technology and Society from Fundação Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro
>  
> Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese feminist activist and grasssroots worker who leads Association for Progressive Communication (APC)'s sexual 
> rights work.
>  
>  
> We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to represent civil society. They have both been informed of their nominations.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination Group)
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20151031/9d183744/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Oct 30 20:02:01 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 01:02:01 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CSCG nominations for civil society
 speakers at IGF
In-Reply-To: <c43882cc-fb96-4a8d-8db4-41e7af1bcd77@varonferraz.com>
References: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba> <CAJTVAjzvb+VQWZOd-orXpzxczv8B==fNhUtFCCEq9HKdSya9Cw@mail.gmail.com> <c43882cc-fb96-4a8d-8db4-41e7af1bcd77@varonferraz.com>
Message-ID: <7F71335A-D24C-4E55-9520-6C6BBFEFCA62@consensus.pro>

I have no doubt that both of you will be splendid - I’ll watch remotely :)

As is said in my former career, ‘break a leg’ (not literally of course)

> On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:11, joana at varonferraz.com wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Ian and everyone!
> 
> I cannot express how honored I'm for this nomination. I hope I can respond to the task with the bright it entails.
> 
> As soon as nomination is confirmed I will share a pad for people to bring inputs. Will already be dreaming with some insights.
> 
> Just a correction in my institutional presentation as I'm not CTS for more then 1 and half year now :):
> 
> I'm founder director and creative chaos catalyst of Coding Rights, a women lead think-and-do tank with the mission to bring hackers, geeks, artists, researchers and activists together to protect, promote and mainstream digital rights and empower women on ICTs. More on @codingrights or codingrights.org (still temporary work in progress)
> 
> Thank you once again and have safe travels to João Pessoa. We will be waiting for you all to cheer with caipirinhas or fresh coconut water.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Joana
> On 30 Oct 2015 17:36, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> Congratulations to both, proud to be represented by these women.
> 
> Many thanks to the CSCG for their work - excellent choices.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Lea
> 
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
> Below are the two nominations from Civil Society Coordination Group for speakers for this years IGF opening and closing ceremonies. They were chosen from a field of 20 names submitted from various civil society coalitions, and have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that any of the 20 names submitted could have represented us admirably, and that it was a tough decision for the CSCG members to come up with 2 names.
> 
> Joana Varon (Brazil) – opening ceremony – joana at varonferraz.com <>
> 
> Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) – closing ceremony – nadine at apcwomen.org <>
> 
> 
> For those who don’t know them,
> 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project coordinator at the Centre for Technology and Society from Fundação Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro
> 
> Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese feminist activist and grasssroots worker who leads Association for Progressive Communication (APC)'s sexual
> rights work.
> 
> 
> We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to represent civil society. They have both been informed of their nominations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination Group)
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 <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/20151031/0f0ca90f/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/20151031/0f0ca90f/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 raquino at gmail.com  Fri Oct 30 20:03:39 2015
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:03:39 -0300
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CSCG nominations for civil society
 speakers at IGF
In-Reply-To: <7F71335A-D24C-4E55-9520-6C6BBFEFCA62@consensus.pro>
References: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba> <CAJTVAjzvb+VQWZOd-orXpzxczv8B==fNhUtFCCEq9HKdSya9Cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c43882cc-fb96-4a8d-8db4-41e7af1bcd77@varonferraz.com> <7F71335A-D24C-4E55-9520-6C6BBFEFCA62@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMyH2Q_XeoMpB2AR5w93yOo6JkhPTCP4LWKWA2h+vreePA@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations on the selection

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> I have no doubt that both of you will be splendid - I’ll watch remotely :)
>
> As is said in my former career, ‘break a leg’ (not literally of course)
>
> On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:11, joana at varonferraz.com wrote:
>
> Thanks, Ian and everyone!
>
> I cannot express how honored I'm for this nomination. I hope I can respond
> to the task with the bright it entails.
>
> As soon as nomination is confirmed I will share a pad for people to bring
> inputs. Will already be dreaming with some insights.
>
> Just a correction in my institutional presentation as I'm not CTS for more
> then 1 and half year now :):
>
> I'm founder director and creative chaos catalyst of Coding Rights, a women
> lead think-and-do tank with the mission to bring hackers, geeks, artists,
> researchers and activists together to protect, promote and mainstream
> digital rights and empower women on ICTs. More on @codingrights or
> codingrights.org (still temporary work in progress)
>
> Thank you once again and have safe travels to João Pessoa. We will be
> waiting for you all to cheer with caipirinhas or fresh coconut water.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Joana
>
> On 30 Oct 2015 17:36, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>
> Congratulations to both, proud to be represented by these women.
>
> Many thanks to the CSCG for their work - excellent choices.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lea
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>> Below are the two nominations from Civil Society Coordination Group for
>> speakers for this years IGF opening and closing ceremonies. They were chosen
>> from a field of 20 names submitted from various civil society coalitions,
>> and have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that any of the
>> 20 names submitted could have represented us admirably, and that it was a
>> tough decision for the CSCG members to come up with 2 names.
>>
>> Joana Varon (Brazil) – opening ceremony – joana at varonferraz.com
>>
>> Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) – closing ceremony – nadine at apcwomen.org
>>
>>
>> For those who don’t know them,
>>
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project coordinator at the Centre
>> for Technology and Society from Fundação Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro
>>
>> Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese feminist activist and grasssroots worker who
>> leads Association for Progressive Communication (APC)'s sexual
>> rights work.
>>
>>
>> We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to represent
>> civil society. They have both been informed of their nominations.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination Group)
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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:
>      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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Oct 31 00:32:45 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 10:02:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net>

Please see the below announcement.

 It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system of
civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for more
substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder committees,
meaning that big business and technical community gets a veto over civil
society rep selection. (Do remember here that 'technical community' here
is not that odd free and open software group volunteering their time in
supporting government schools or the such. This term is accepted in the
IG world now to denote those who work for and represent organisations
engaged with technical governance of the Internet, and thus represent a
governance status quo group. The semantic confusion about the term, as
being people with technical capacities, is deliberate in order to
utilise a certain legitimacy for what is a power based governance system.)

The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.

This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks that I
work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely protective of
its independence, which includes the right to choose its own nominees
(for instance, any efforts at national govs 'clearing' civil society
reps from their countries has been strongly resisted at the UN and other
global governance levels).  I think we need to write back to those
responsible for this process that , thanks but no thanks, you tell us
how many CS sepakers you want and we have a process of selection for CS
reps and we will deliver the names by the date you want.

May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to WSIS
process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at the
earliest. Before these mentioned deadlines pass.

Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....

Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the co-facilitators
against such a process of big business sitting over decisions on CS
reps. It seems to have had no effect.

A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the IGF
MAG, led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer, to
institute a method of selections of non gov MAG members by a committee
of older non gov MAG members. I was able to attend MAG meetings in those
days as a Special Advisor to the chair. I opposed such a process of CS
nominee selection by a committee that included big business and
technical community  (read the ICANN/ ISOC system). I was able to get
the support of a few CS MAG members in the room, and I distinctly
remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in this regard, and perhaps a
person or two more whose names may have dropped from my memory (my
apologies).... And because of the CS opposition this problematic move
had to be abandoned.  Now it seems to be coming back from another door,
and we need to stand up against it once again.

Again, we have very little turnaround time here.

parminder

On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *NGO News* <ngonews at un.org <mailto:ngonews at un.org>>
> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
> Subject: [NGO News:] Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the
> General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
> To: crossini at publicknowledge.org <mailto:crossini at publicknowledge.org>
>
>
> *Deadlines:            *
>
> *8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee*
>
> *12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles*
>
> *The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of the
> implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
> Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the UN Headquarters
> in New York.*
>
> This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth
> discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS
> outcomes, including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as
> areas for future actions.
>
> *To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the form
> available here
> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ffRSw8C5UGYRKrzdpCiWnyc2EMVTbmZ1SVGNnhs0FcQ/viewform>*.
> Applications will be accepted from *30 October to* *12 November 2015*.
>
> *A Selection Committee will be established* in order to ensure broad
> and inclusive participation of stakeholders in the high-level meeting.
> Applications to the Selection Committee will be accepted
> from *30 October to 8 November 2015*. To learn more about the
> Selection Committee, please see the Terms of Reference by clicking on
> this link
> <http://csonet.org/content/documents/WSIS+10_ToR_Steering_Committee.pdf>. *To
> apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee, please
> complete the form available **here*
> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pzCRKLri16XUMNYNA9QECFnhCrO9Ub7ex0Ho2vdYp2k/viewform>*.*
>
> *Background*
>
> In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the World
> Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common desire and
> commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and
> development-oriented Information Society," and ushered in an era of
> harnessing the power of information and communication technology to
> contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals
> (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action established targets and
> the eleven action lines, which guide development in specific areas.
>
> The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon the
> achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis Agenda
> addressing additional issues, such as financing and internet
> governance. Paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed by the General
> Assembly in resolution 60/252, requested the General Assembly to
> undertake the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of
> WSIS in 2015.  In response, the General Assembly in resolution 68/302,
> decided that the overall review will be concluded by a two-day
> high-level meeting of the General Assembly, to be preceded by an
> intergovernmental process that also takes into account inputs from all
> relevant stakeholders of WSIS.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy and Strategy 
> /
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
> -- 
>
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151031/16f34885/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Oct 31 03:17:22 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:17:22 +1100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba>

Hi Parminder,

While I agree with your analysis, I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be changed in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest we make. So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved, and from that position make a strong statement that the process is flawed and problematic from our point of view. I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are able to correct some excesses from our point of view, but certainly not all.
However that’s just a personal point of view.  We have just opened a discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can according to this process are: Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) • Organizations accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011 to 2015 • Organizations with observer status with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development • Attendees of the UNESCO WSIS+10 - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS - Connecting the Dots Conference • Organizations accredited to the Financing for Development (FFD) process • Organizations accredited to the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 • Organizations already accredited to the WSIS+10 process (July and October meetings)
So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our nominations as representatives of civil society organisations who do fit one at least of the above criteria.
Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is roughly that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it may not be easy to find people able to represent us. I believe that if we are involved we should try to fill both civil society slots on the selection panel. But that will have to be as two separate nominations (backed by CSCG) from different CS groups.
And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we have to do so this week. 
And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will not be standing again, as various factors are making it difficult for me to maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I think it is time for one of our very talented (and younger) members to take over.  CSCG is currently drafting an EOI to seek a new independent Chair, with the aim of opening that process before IGF so that people get a chance to discuss it while many are present in Brazil. So the replacement process hopefully will complete by the end of this year.
So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone who has an interest in working with CSCG as part of this particular process; I don’t necessarily want to be involved if we have good reps able to consult with CSCG members. If anyone is interested in this and wants to contact me privately to assist in this way,  I would be happy to discuss further and approach CSCG as regards their involvement.
Thanks for opening up a discussion on this. 
Ian Peter
From: parminder 
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10

Please see the below announcement.

It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system of civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for more substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder committees, meaning that big business and technical community gets a veto over civil society rep selection. (Do remember here that 'technical community' here is not that odd free and open software group volunteering their time in supporting government schools or the such. This term is accepted in the IG world now to denote those who work for and represent organisations engaged with technical governance of the Internet, and thus represent a governance status quo group. The semantic confusion about the term, as being people with technical capacities, is deliberate in order to utilise a certain legitimacy for what is a power based governance system.)

The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.

This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks that I work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely protective of its independence, which includes the right to choose its own nominees (for instance, any efforts at national govs 'clearing' civil society reps from their countries has been strongly resisted at the UN and other global governance levels).  I think we need to write back to those responsible for this process that , thanks but no thanks, you tell us how many CS sepakers you want and we have a process of selection for CS reps and we will deliver the names by the date you want.

May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to WSIS process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at the earliest. Before these mentioned deadlines pass.

Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....

Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the co-facilitators against such a process of big business sitting over decisions on CS reps. It seems to have had no effect.

A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the IGF MAG, led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer, to institute a method of selections of non gov MAG members by a committee of older non gov MAG members. I was able to attend MAG meetings in those days as a Special Advisor to the chair. I opposed such a process of CS nominee selection by a committee that included big business and technical community  (read the ICANN/ ISOC system). I was able to get the support of a few CS MAG members in the room, and I distinctly remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in this regard, and perhaps a person or two more whose names may have dropped from my memory (my apologies).... And because of the CS opposition this problematic move had to be abandoned.  Now it seems to be coming back from another door, and we need to stand up against it once again.

Again, we have very little turnaround time here. 

parminder 


On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:


  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
  From: NGO News <ngonews at un.org>
  Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
  Subject: [NGO News:] Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
  To: crossini at publicknowledge.org



  Deadlines:            

  8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee

  12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles

  The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the UN Headquarters in New York.

  This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as areas for future actions.

  To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the form available here. Applications will be accepted from 30 October to 12 November 2015.

  A Selection Committee will be established in order to ensure broad and inclusive participation of stakeholders in the high-level meeting. Applications to the Selection Committee will be accepted from 30 October to 8 November 2015. To learn more about the Selection Committee, please see the Terms of Reference by clicking on this link. To apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee, please complete the form available here.

  Background

  In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society," and ushered in an era of harnessing the power of information and communication technology to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action established targets and the eleven action lines, which guide development in specific areas.

  The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon the achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis Agenda addressing additional issues, such as financing and internet governance. Paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed by the General Assembly in resolution 60/252, requested the General Assembly to undertake the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of WSIS in 2015.  In response, the General Assembly in resolution 68/302, decided that the overall review will be concluded by a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly, to be preceded by an intergovernmental process that also takes into account inputs from all relevant stakeholders of WSIS.





  -- 


  Carolina Rossini 
  Vice President, International Policy and Strategy 

  Public Knowledge
  http://www.publicknowledge.org/

  + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini



  -- 


  Carolina Rossini 
  Vice President, International Policy
  Public Knowledge
  http://www.publicknowledge.org/

  + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini


   

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



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
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/20151031/12605d06/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Oct 31 03:49:39 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 13:19:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net> <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net>



On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>  
> While I agree with your analysis,

Ian, I am not sure you are seeing it the way I am. This is not about 4-5
of us getting a few minutes from the podium. This is about civil society
representation will be chosen in the IG space. And if you really feel it
the way i do, why would you not agree to write as such to those in
charge of the process.

> I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be
> changed in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest we
> make.

As I said, it does not matter if it changes. There is a larger
structural point here. On the other hand, I am about 90 percent sure
that if all groups involved in CSCG writes that this is not right, and
please let us do our own selection they would agree. Civil society seems
to have forgotten to leverage its legitimacy, and we seem to cave in to
just about everything, a being beyond us to influence. This is not how
it should be at all,

> So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved, and
> from that position make a strong statement that the process is flawed
> and problematic from our point of view.

Are you saying that the chosen speakers will speak from the podium that
this process is flawed, and in this way? Please be clear. But if we are
ready to have our speakers speak about it at the high level meeting, why
would we not want to write about it to the co-facilitators and the
concerned UN bureaucracy? Isnt that much simpler, and at least have the
potential of meaningful impact.

> I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are able
> to correct some excesses from our point of view, but certainly not all.

Again, did not understand. What excesses, and how are they corrected?
>  
> However that’s just a personal point of view.  We have just opened a
> discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
>  
> One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can
> according to this process are:

These criteria are for those individuals who want to apply to be on the
multistakeholder selection committee. My proposal is to disassociate CS
selection from this multistakeholder selection process, and ask for CSCG
to do it (I find it highly likely that they'd agree). So, the issue of
the creteria you mention simply does not apply to the proposal I am
making and seeking your and other people's views on.

> Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the
> Economic and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the World
> Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis
> (2005) • Organizations accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011 to
> 2015 • Organizations with observer status with the United Nations
> Conference on Trade and Development • Attendees of the UNESCO WSIS+10
> - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS - Connecting the Dots Conference
> • Organizations accredited to the Financing for Development (FFD)
> process • Organizations accredited to the United Nations Sustainable
> Development Summit 2015 • Organizations already accredited to the
> WSIS+10 process (July and October meetings)
>  
> So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our
> nominations as representatives of civil society organisations who do
> fit one at least of the above criteria.

 I am not asking for the CSCG to get involved with this multistakeholder
selection process. On the contrary, I am asking for us to disassociate
from it.

>  
> Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is
> roughly that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it may
> not be easy to find people able to represent us. I believe that if we
> are involved we should try to fill both civil society slots on the
> selection panel. But that will have to be as two separate nominations
> (backed by CSCG) from different CS groups.

Again, you are speaking of CSCG getting involved with the current
process, which is fundamentally different from my proposal to ask for CS
nominations to be taken off the multistakeholder process, and be taken
over by CSCG itself. Same about the rest of your email below.


Ian, lets look at it in two parts. Do the involved CS groups agree that
other stakeholders  - big business, gov, ICANN/ ISOC - should not be
involved in selection of its reps? Yes or no. If yes, then let us that
put down in a letter. I am happy to fight the case, but if we have such
a position and want to fight the case. We cannot keep citing expediency
for just everything. But if we are ok with such a process, that is a
different matter, and let different groups and individuals give their
views... Their has to be some limit to - we agree it is wrong, but....

parminder

>  
> And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we have
> to do so this week.
>  
> And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the
> Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will not
> be standing again, as various factors are making it difficult for me
> to maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I think it is
> time for one of our very talented (and younger) members to take over. 
> CSCG is currently drafting an EOI to seek a new independent Chair,
> with the aim of opening that process before IGF so that people get a
> chance to discuss it while many are present in Brazil. So the
> replacement process hopefully will complete by the end of this year.
>  
> So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone who
> has an interest in working with CSCG as part of this particular
> process; I don’t necessarily want to be involved if we have good reps
> able to consult with CSCG members. If anyone is interested in this and
> wants to contact me privately to assist in this way,  I would be happy
> to discuss further and approach CSCG as regards their involvement.
>  
> Thanks for opening up a discussion on this.
>  
> Ian Peter
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
> Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>  
> Please see the below announcement.
>
> It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system of
> civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for more
> substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder committees,
> meaning that big business and technical community gets a veto over
> civil society rep selection. (Do remember here that 'technical
> community' here is not that odd free and open software group
> volunteering their time in supporting government schools or the such.
> This term is accepted in the IG world now to denote those who work for
> and represent organisations engaged with technical governance of the
> Internet, and thus represent a governance status quo group. The
> semantic confusion about the term, as being people with technical
> capacities, is deliberate in order to utilise a certain legitimacy for
> what is a power based governance system.)
>
> The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.
>
> This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks that I
> work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely protective of
> its independence, which includes the right to choose its own nominees
> (for instance, any efforts at national govs 'clearing' civil society
> reps from their countries has been strongly resisted at the UN and
> other global governance levels).  I think we need to write back to
> those responsible for this process that , thanks but no thanks, you
> tell us how many CS sepakers you want and we have a process of
> selection for CS reps and we will deliver the names by the date you want.
>
> May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to
> WSIS process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at the
> earliest. Before these mentioned deadlines pass.
>
> Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....
>
> Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the co-facilitators
> against such a process of big business sitting over decisions on CS
> reps. It seems to have had no effect.
>
> A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the IGF
> MAG, led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer, to
> institute a method of selections of non gov MAG members by a committee
> of older non gov MAG members. I was able to attend MAG meetings in
> those days as a Special Advisor to the chair. I opposed such a process
> of CS nominee selection by a committee that included big business and
> technical community  (read the ICANN/ ISOC system). I was able to get
> the support of a few CS MAG members in the room, and I distinctly
> remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in this regard, and perhaps a
> person or two more whose names may have dropped from my memory (my
> apologies).... And because of the CS opposition this problematic move
> had to be abandoned.  Now it seems to be coming back from another
> door, and we need to stand up against it once again.
>
> Again, we have very little turnaround time here.
>
> parminder
>
> On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *NGO News* <ngonews at un.org <mailto:ngonews at un.org>>
>> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
>> Subject: [NGO News:] Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the
>> General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>> To: crossini at publicknowledge.org <mailto:crossini at publicknowledge.org>
>>
>>
>> *Deadlines:            *
>>
>> *8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee*
>>
>> *12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles*
>>
>> *The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of the
>> implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
>> Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the UN Headquarters
>> in New York.*
>>
>> This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth
>> discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS
>> outcomes, including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as
>> areas for future actions.
>>
>> *To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the
>> form available here
>> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ffRSw8C5UGYRKrzdpCiWnyc2EMVTbmZ1SVGNnhs0FcQ/viewform>*.
>> Applications will be accepted from *30 October to* *12 November 2015*.
>>
>> *A Selection Committee will be established* in order to ensure broad
>> and inclusive participation of stakeholders in the high-level
>> meeting. Applications to the Selection Committee will be accepted
>> from *30 October to 8 November 2015*. To learn more about the
>> Selection Committee, please see the Terms of Reference by clicking on
>> this link
>> <http://csonet.org/content/documents/WSIS+10_ToR_Steering_Committee.pdf>.
>> *To apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee,
>> please complete the form available **here*
>> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pzCRKLri16XUMNYNA9QECFnhCrO9Ub7ex0Ho2vdYp2k/viewform>*.*
>>
>> *Background*
>>
>> In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the World
>> Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common desire and
>> commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and
>> development-oriented Information Society," and ushered in an era of
>> harnessing the power of information and communication technology to
>> contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals
>> (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action established targets and
>> the eleven action lines, which guide development in specific areas.
>>
>> The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon the
>> achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis Agenda
>> addressing additional issues, such as financing and internet
>> governance. Paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed by the
>> General Assembly in resolution 60/252, requested the General Assembly
>> to undertake the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes
>> of WSIS in 2015.  In response, the General Assembly in resolution
>> 68/302, decided that the overall review will be concluded by a
>> two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly, to be preceded by
>> an intergovernmental process that also takes into account inputs from
>> all relevant stakeholders of WSIS.
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>> -- 
>>  
>> /Carolina Rossini /
>> /Vice President, International Policy and Strategy
>> /
>> *Public Knowledge*
>> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>
>>  
>> -- 
>>  
>> /Carolina Rossini /
>> /Vice President, International Policy/
>> *Public Knowledge*
>> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>  
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20151031/aeaaa58b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Oct 31 03:58:14 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 13:28:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net> <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba> <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <56347496.9040002@itforchange.net>

This is what para 3 of part I of the section on roadmap of the
NetMundial outcome document says:

"Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet
governance processes should be selected through open , democratic, and
transparent processes. Different /*stakeholder groups should self -
manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined
and accountable mechanism*/s." (Emphasis added)





On Saturday 31 October 2015 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> Hi Parminder,
>>  
>> While I agree with your analysis,
>
> Ian, I am not sure you are seeing it the way I am. This is not about
> 4-5 of us getting a few minutes from the podium. This is about civil
> society representation will be chosen in the IG space. And if you
> really feel it the way i do, why would you not agree to write as such
> to those in charge of the process.
>
>> I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be
>> changed in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest we
>> make.
>
> As I said, it does not matter if it changes. There is a larger
> structural point here. On the other hand, I am about 90 percent sure
> that if all groups involved in CSCG writes that this is not right, and
> please let us do our own selection they would agree. Civil society
> seems to have forgotten to leverage its legitimacy, and we seem to
> cave in to just about everything, a being beyond us to influence. This
> is not how it should be at all,
>
>> So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved, and
>> from that position make a strong statement that the process is flawed
>> and problematic from our point of view.
>
> Are you saying that the chosen speakers will speak from the podium
> that this process is flawed, and in this way? Please be clear. But if
> we are ready to have our speakers speak about it at the high level
> meeting, why would we not want to write about it to the
> co-facilitators and the concerned UN bureaucracy? Isnt that much
> simpler, and at least have the potential of meaningful impact.
>
>> I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are
>> able to correct some excesses from our point of view, but certainly
>> not all.
>
> Again, did not understand. What excesses, and how are they corrected?
>>  
>> However that’s just a personal point of view.  We have just opened a
>> discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
>>  
>> One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can
>> according to this process are:
>
> These criteria are for those individuals who want to apply to be on
> the multistakeholder selection committee. My proposal is to
> disassociate CS selection from this multistakeholder selection
> process, and ask for CSCG to do it (I find it highly likely that
> they'd agree). So, the issue of the creteria you mention simply does
> not apply to the proposal I am making and seeking your and other
> people's views on.
>
>> Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the
>> Economic and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the World
>> Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis
>> (2005) • Organizations accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011 to
>> 2015 • Organizations with observer status with the United Nations
>> Conference on Trade and Development • Attendees of the UNESCO WSIS+10
>> - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS - Connecting the Dots
>> Conference • Organizations accredited to the Financing for
>> Development (FFD) process • Organizations accredited to the United
>> Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 • Organizations already
>> accredited to the WSIS+10 process (July and October meetings)
>>  
>> So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our
>> nominations as representatives of civil society organisations who do
>> fit one at least of the above criteria.
>
>  I am not asking for the CSCG to get involved with this
> multistakeholder selection process. On the contrary, I am asking for
> us to disassociate from it.
>
>>  
>> Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is
>> roughly that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it may
>> not be easy to find people able to represent us. I believe that if we
>> are involved we should try to fill both civil society slots on the
>> selection panel. But that will have to be as two separate nominations
>> (backed by CSCG) from different CS groups.
>
> Again, you are speaking of CSCG getting involved with the current
> process, which is fundamentally different from my proposal to ask for
> CS nominations to be taken off the multistakeholder process, and be
> taken over by CSCG itself. Same about the rest of your email below.
>
>
> Ian, lets look at it in two parts. Do the involved CS groups agree
> that other stakeholders  - big business, gov, ICANN/ ISOC - should not
> be involved in selection of its reps? Yes or no. If yes, then let us
> that put down in a letter. I am happy to fight the case, but if we
> have such a position and want to fight the case. We cannot keep citing
> expediency for just everything. But if we are ok with such a process,
> that is a different matter, and let different groups and individuals
> give their views... Their has to be some limit to - we agree it is
> wrong, but....
>
> parminder
>
>>  
>> And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we have
>> to do so this week.
>>  
>> And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the
>> Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will
>> not be standing again, as various factors are making it difficult for
>> me to maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I think it
>> is time for one of our very talented (and younger) members to take
>> over.  CSCG is currently drafting an EOI to seek a new independent
>> Chair, with the aim of opening that process before IGF so that people
>> get a chance to discuss it while many are present in Brazil. So the
>> replacement process hopefully will complete by the end of this year.
>>  
>> So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone who
>> has an interest in working with CSCG as part of this particular
>> process; I don’t necessarily want to be involved if we have good reps
>> able to consult with CSCG members. If anyone is interested in this
>> and wants to contact me privately to assist in this way,  I would be
>> happy to discuss further and approach CSCG as regards their involvement.
>>  
>> Thanks for opening up a discussion on this.
>>  
>> Ian Peter
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
>> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
>> Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>  
>> Please see the below announcement.
>>
>> It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system
>> of civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for
>> more substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder
>> committees, meaning that big business and technical community gets a
>> veto over civil society rep selection. (Do remember here that
>> 'technical community' here is not that odd free and open software
>> group volunteering their time in supporting government schools or the
>> such. This term is accepted in the IG world now to denote those who
>> work for and represent organisations engaged with technical
>> governance of the Internet, and thus represent a governance status
>> quo group. The semantic confusion about the term, as being people
>> with technical capacities, is deliberate in order to utilise a
>> certain legitimacy for what is a power based governance system.)
>>
>> The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.
>>
>> This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks that
>> I work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely protective
>> of its independence, which includes the right to choose its own
>> nominees (for instance, any efforts at national govs 'clearing' civil
>> society reps from their countries has been strongly resisted at the
>> UN and other global governance levels).  I think we need to write
>> back to those responsible for this process that , thanks but no
>> thanks, you tell us how many CS sepakers you want and we have a
>> process of selection for CS reps and we will deliver the names by the
>> date you want.
>>
>> May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to
>> WSIS process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at
>> the earliest. Before these mentioned deadlines pass.
>>
>> Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....
>>
>> Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the
>> co-facilitators against such a process of big business sitting over
>> decisions on CS reps. It seems to have had no effect.
>>
>> A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the IGF
>> MAG, led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer, to
>> institute a method of selections of non gov MAG members by a
>> committee of older non gov MAG members. I was able to attend MAG
>> meetings in those days as a Special Advisor to the chair. I opposed
>> such a process of CS nominee selection by a committee that included
>> big business and technical community  (read the ICANN/ ISOC system).
>> I was able to get the support of a few CS MAG members in the room,
>> and I distinctly remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in this
>> regard, and perhaps a person or two more whose names may have dropped
>> from my memory (my apologies).... And because of the CS opposition
>> this problematic move had to be abandoned.  Now it seems to be coming
>> back from another door, and we need to stand up against it once again.
>>
>> Again, we have very little turnaround time here.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *NGO News* <ngonews at un.org <mailto:ngonews at un.org>>
>>> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
>>> Subject: [NGO News:] Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at
>>> the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>> To: crossini at publicknowledge.org <mailto:crossini at publicknowledge.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Deadlines:            *
>>>
>>> *8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee*
>>>
>>> *12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles*
>>>
>>> *The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of
>>> the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the
>>> Information Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the UN
>>> Headquarters in New York.*
>>>
>>> This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth
>>> discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS
>>> outcomes, including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as
>>> areas for future actions.
>>>
>>> *To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the
>>> form available here
>>> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ffRSw8C5UGYRKrzdpCiWnyc2EMVTbmZ1SVGNnhs0FcQ/viewform>*.
>>> Applications will be accepted from *30 October to* *12 November 2015*.
>>>
>>> *A Selection Committee will be established* in order to ensure broad
>>> and inclusive participation of stakeholders in the high-level
>>> meeting. Applications to the Selection Committee will be accepted
>>> from *30 October to 8 November 2015*. To learn more about the
>>> Selection Committee, please see the Terms of Reference by clicking
>>> on this link
>>> <http://csonet.org/content/documents/WSIS+10_ToR_Steering_Committee.pdf>.
>>> *To apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee,
>>> please complete the form available **here*
>>> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pzCRKLri16XUMNYNA9QECFnhCrO9Ub7ex0Ho2vdYp2k/viewform>*.*
>>>
>>> *Background*
>>>
>>> In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the World
>>> Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common desire and
>>> commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and
>>> development-oriented Information Society," and ushered in an era of
>>> harnessing the power of information and communication technology to
>>> contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals
>>> (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action established targets and
>>> the eleven action lines, which guide development in specific areas.
>>>
>>> The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon the
>>> achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis Agenda
>>> addressing additional issues, such as financing and internet
>>> governance. Paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed by the
>>> General Assembly in resolution 60/252, requested the General
>>> Assembly to undertake the overall review of the implementation of
>>> the outcomes of WSIS in 2015.  In response, the General Assembly in
>>> resolution 68/302, decided that the overall review will be concluded
>>> by a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly, to be
>>> preceded by an intergovernmental process that also takes into
>>> account inputs from all relevant stakeholders of WSIS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>>  
>>> /Carolina Rossini /
>>> /Vice President, International Policy and Strategy
>>> /
>>> *Public Knowledge*
>>> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>>  
>>> /Carolina Rossini /
>>> /Vice President, International Policy/
>>> *Public Knowledge*
>>> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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/20151031/1c8df916/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Oct 31 04:08:53 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 19:08:53 +1100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <56347496.9040002@itforchange.net>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net> <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba> <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net> <56347496.9040002@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <00172661A97441C685D1A0F64770BB66@Toshiba>

Is there general agreement we should write something pointing this out and asking for a process where CS chooses its own reps?

Perhaps we could ask for UNDESA to forward CS names submitted to us and we will advise our choices?

Interested in other opinions on this.... we would have to move quickly...



From: parminder 
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 6:58 PM
To: Ian Peter ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10

This is what para 3 of part I of the section on roadmap of the NetMundial outcome document says:


"Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open , democratic, and transparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self - manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountable mechanisms." (Emphasis added)








On Saturday 31 October 2015 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:




  On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

    Hi Parminder,

    While I agree with your analysis,

  Ian, I am not sure you are seeing it the way I am. This is not about 4-5 of us getting a few minutes from the podium. This is about civil society representation will be chosen in the IG space. And if you really feel it the way i do, why would you not agree to write as such to those in charge of the process. 


    I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be changed in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest we make. 

  As I said, it does not matter if it changes. There is a larger structural point here. On the other hand, I am about 90 percent sure that if all groups involved in CSCG writes that this is not right, and please let us do our own selection they would agree. Civil society seems to have forgotten to leverage its legitimacy, and we seem to cave in to just about everything, a being beyond us to influence. This is not how it should be at all, 


    So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved, and from that position make a strong statement that the process is flawed and problematic from our point of view.

  Are you saying that the chosen speakers will speak from the podium that this process is flawed, and in this way? Please be clear. But if we are ready to have our speakers speak about it at the high level meeting, why would we not want to write about it to the co-facilitators and the concerned UN bureaucracy? Isnt that much simpler, and at least have the potential of meaningful impact.


    I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are able to correct some excesses from our point of view, but certainly not all.

  Again, did not understand. What excesses, and how are they corrected?

    However that’s just a personal point of view.  We have just opened a discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
    One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can according to this process are: 

  These criteria are for those individuals who want to apply to be on the multistakeholder selection committee. My proposal is to disassociate CS selection from this multistakeholder selection process, and ask for CSCG to do it (I find it highly likely that they'd agree). So, the issue of the creteria you mention simply does not apply to the proposal I am making and seeking your and other people's views on. 


    Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) • Organizations accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011 to 2015 • Organizations with observer status with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development • Attendees of the UNESCO WSIS+10 - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS - Connecting the Dots Conference • Organizations accredited to the Financing for Development (FFD) process • Organizations accredited to the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 • Organizations already accredited to the WSIS+10 process (July and October meetings)
    So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our nominations as representatives of civil society organisations who do fit one at least of the above criteria.

  I am not asking for the CSCG to get involved with this multistakeholder selection process. On the contrary, I am asking for us to disassociate from it. 


    Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is roughly that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it may not be easy to find people able to represent us. I believe that if we are involved we should try to fill both civil society slots on the selection panel. But that will have to be as two separate nominations (backed by CSCG) from different CS groups.

  Again, you are speaking of CSCG getting involved with the current process, which is fundamentally different from my proposal to ask for CS nominations to be taken off the multistakeholder process, and be taken over by CSCG itself. Same about the rest of your email below.


  Ian, lets look at it in two parts. Do the involved CS groups agree that other stakeholders  - big business, gov, ICANN/ ISOC - should not be involved in selection of its reps? Yes or no. If yes, then let us that put down in a letter. I am happy to fight the case, but if we have such a position and want to fight the case. We cannot keep citing expediency for just everything. But if we are ok with such a process, that is a different matter, and let different groups and individuals give their views... Their has to be some limit to - we agree it is wrong, but....

  parminder 


    And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we have to do so this week. 
    And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will not be standing again, as various factors are making it difficult for me to maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I think it is time for one of our very talented (and younger) members to take over.  CSCG is currently drafting an EOI to seek a new independent Chair, with the aim of opening that process before IGF so that people get a chance to discuss it while many are present in Brazil. So the replacement process hopefully will complete by the end of this year.
    So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone who has an interest in working with CSCG as part of this particular process; I don’t necessarily want to be involved if we have good reps able to consult with CSCG members. If anyone is interested in this and wants to contact me privately to assist in this way,  I would be happy to discuss further and approach CSCG as regards their involvement.
    Thanks for opening up a discussion on this. 
    Ian Peter
    From: parminder 
    Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
    To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
    Subject: Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10

    Please see the below announcement.

    It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system of civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for more substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder committees, meaning that big business and technical community gets a veto over civil society rep selection. (Do remember here that 'technical community' here is not that odd free and open software group volunteering their time in supporting government schools or the such. This term is accepted in the IG world now to denote those who work for and represent organisations engaged with technical governance of the Internet, and thus represent a governance status quo group. The semantic confusion about the term, as being people with technical capacities, is deliberate in order to utilise a certain legitimacy for what is a power based governance system.)

    The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.

    This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks that I work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely protective of its independence, which includes the right to choose its own nominees (for instance, any efforts at national govs 'clearing' civil society reps from their countries has been strongly resisted at the UN and other global governance levels).  I think we need to write back to those responsible for this process that , thanks but no thanks, you tell us how many CS sepakers you want and we have a process of selection for CS reps and we will deliver the names by the date you want.

    May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to WSIS process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at the earliest. Before these mentioned deadlines pass.

    Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....

    Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the co-facilitators against such a process of big business sitting over decisions on CS reps. It seems to have had no effect.

    A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the IGF MAG, led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer, to institute a method of selections of non gov MAG members by a committee of older non gov MAG members. I was able to attend MAG meetings in those days as a Special Advisor to the chair. I opposed such a process of CS nominee selection by a committee that included big business and technical community  (read the ICANN/ ISOC system). I was able to get the support of a few CS MAG members in the room, and I distinctly remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in this regard, and perhaps a person or two more whose names may have dropped from my memory (my apologies).... And because of the CS opposition this problematic move had to be abandoned.  Now it seems to be coming back from another door, and we need to stand up against it once again.

    Again, we have very little turnaround time here. 

    parminder 


    On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:


      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: NGO News <ngonews at un.org>
      Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
      Subject: [NGO News:] Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
      To: crossini at publicknowledge.org



      Deadlines:            

      8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee

      12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles

      The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the UN Headquarters in New York.

      This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as areas for future actions.

      To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the form available here. Applications will be accepted from 30 October to 12 November 2015.

      A Selection Committee will be established in order to ensure broad and inclusive participation of stakeholders in the high-level meeting. Applications to the Selection Committee will be accepted from 30 October to 8 November 2015. To learn more about the Selection Committee, please see the Terms of Reference by clicking on this link. To apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee, please complete the form available here.

      Background

      In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society," and ushered in an era of harnessing the power of information and communication technology to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action established targets and the eleven action lines, which guide development in specific areas.

      The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon the achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis Agenda addressing additional issues, such as financing and internet governance. Paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed by the General Assembly in resolution 60/252, requested the General Assembly to undertake the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of WSIS in 2015.  In response, the General Assembly in resolution 68/302, decided that the overall review will be concluded by a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly, to be preceded by an intergovernmental process that also takes into account inputs from all relevant stakeholders of WSIS.





      -- 


      Carolina Rossini 
      Vice President, International Policy and Strategy 

      Public Knowledge
      http://www.publicknowledge.org/

      + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini



      -- 


      Carolina Rossini 
      Vice President, International Policy
      Public Knowledge
      http://www.publicknowledge.org/

      + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini


       

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

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


   

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



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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151031/6c7fefac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Sat Oct 31 04:54:31 2015
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:54:31 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <00172661A97441C685D1A0F64770BB66@Toshiba>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net> <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba> <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net> <56347496.9040002@itforchange.net> <00172661A97441C685D1A0F64770BB66@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAD7B71A-8D63-4429-8B40-CE964BF91C31@theglobaljournal.net>

Dear Ian,

Thanks for suggesting.

I agree with the idea that CS should self manage its own representatives, and I feel that it would make sense to inform the appropriate body regarding this serious issue. Parminder made a rather clear case here, and I presume that all CS should share his concern, and try to put things in their right shoes. So writing something seems a good idea. Adding a suggestion in that writing  might be very welcome as well, as it would help to find rapidly an alternative.

JC





Le 31 oct. 2015 à 09:08, Ian Peter a écrit :

> Is there general agreement we should write something pointing this out and asking for a process where CS chooses its own reps?
>  
> Perhaps we could ask for UNDESA to forward CS names submitted to us and we will advise our choices?
>  
> Interested in other opinions on this.... we would have to move quickly...
>  
>  
>  
> From: parminder
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 6:58 PM
> To: Ian Peter ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>  
> This is what para 3 of part I of the section on roadmap of the NetMundial outcome document says:
> 
> "Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open , democratic, and transparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self - manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountable mechanisms." (Emphasis added)
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>  
>>> While I agree with your analysis,
>> 
>> Ian, I am not sure you are seeing it the way I am. This is not about 4-5 of us getting a few minutes from the podium. This is about civil society representation will be chosen in the IG space. And if you really feel it the way i do, why would you not agree to write as such to those in charge of the process. 
>> 
>>> I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be changed in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest we make.
>> 
>> As I said, it does not matter if it changes. There is a larger structural point here. On the other hand, I am about 90 percent sure that if all groups involved in CSCG writes that this is not right, and please let us do our own selection they would agree. Civil society seems to have forgotten to leverage its legitimacy, and we seem to cave in to just about everything, a being beyond us to influence. This is not how it should be at all, 
>> 
>>> So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved, and from that position make a strong statement that the process is flawed and problematic from our point of view.
>> 
>> Are you saying that the chosen speakers will speak from the podium that this process is flawed, and in this way? Please be clear. But if we are ready to have our speakers speak about it at the high level meeting, why would we not want to write about it to the co-facilitators and the concerned UN bureaucracy? Isnt that much simpler, and at least have the potential of meaningful impact.
>> 
>>> I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are able to correct some excesses from our point of view, but certainly not all.
>> 
>> Again, did not understand. What excesses, and how are they corrected?
>>>  
>>> However that’s just a personal point of view.  We have just opened a discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
>>>  
>>> One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can according to this process are:
>> 
>> These criteria are for those individuals who want to apply to be on the multistakeholder selection committee. My proposal is to disassociate CS selection from this    multistakeholder selection process, and ask for CSCG to do it (I find it highly likely that they'd agree). So, the issue of the creteria you mention simply does not apply to the proposal I am making and seeking your and other people's views on. 
>> 
>>> Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) • Organizations accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011 to 2015 • Organizations with observer status with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development • Attendees of the UNESCO WSIS+10 - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS - Connecting the Dots Conference • Organizations accredited to the Financing for Development (FFD) process • Organizations accredited to the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 • Organizations already accredited to the WSIS+10 process (July and October meetings)
>>>  
>>> So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our nominations as representatives of civil society organisations who do fit one at least of the above criteria.
>> 
>> I am not asking for the CSCG to get involved with this multistakeholder selection process. On the contrary, I am asking for us to disassociate from it. 
>> 
>>>  
>>> Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is roughly that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it may not be easy to find people able to represent us. I believe that if we are involved we should try to fill both civil society slots on the selection panel. But that will have to be as two separate nominations (backed by CSCG) from different CS groups.
>> 
>> Again, you are speaking of CSCG getting involved with the current process, which is fundamentally different from my proposal to ask for CS nominations to be taken off the multistakeholder process, and be taken over by CSCG itself. Same about the rest of your email below.
>> 
>> 
>> Ian, lets look at it in two parts. Do the involved CS groups agree that other stakeholders  - big business, gov, ICANN/ ISOC - should not be involved in selection of its reps? Yes or no. If yes, then let us that put down in a letter. I am happy to fight the case, but if we have such a position and want to fight the case. We cannot keep citing expediency for just everything. But if we are ok with such a process, that is a different matter, and let different groups and individuals give their    views... Their has to be some limit to - we agree it is wrong, but....
>> 
>> parminder 
>> 
>>>  
>>> And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we have to do so this week.
>>>  
>>> And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will not be standing again, as various factors are making it difficult for me to maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I think it is time for one of our very talented (and younger) members to take over.  CSCG is currently drafting an EOI to seek a new independent Chair, with the aim of opening that process before IGF so that people get a chance to discuss it while many are present in Brazil. So the replacement process hopefully will complete by the end of this year.
>>>  
>>> So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone who has an interest in working with CSCG as part of this particular process; I don’t necessarily want to be involved if we have good reps able to consult with CSCG members. If anyone is interested in this and wants to contact me privately to assist in this way,  I would be happy to discuss further and approach CSCG as regards their involvement.
>>>  
>>> Thanks for opening up a discussion on this.
>>>  
>>> Ian Peter
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: parminder
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>  
>>> Please see the below announcement.
>>> 
>>> It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system of civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for more substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder committees, meaning that big business and technical community gets a veto over civil society rep selection. (Do remember here that 'technical community' here is not that odd free and open software group volunteering their time in supporting government schools or the such. This term is accepted in the IG world now to denote those who work for and represent organisations engaged with technical governance of the Internet, and thus represent a governance status quo group. The semantic confusion about the term, as being people with technical capacities, is deliberate in order to utilise a certain legitimacy for what is a power based governance system.)
>>> 
>>> The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.
>>> 
>>> This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks that I work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely protective of its independence, which includes the right to choose its own nominees (for instance, any efforts at national govs 'clearing' civil society reps from their countries has been strongly      resisted at the UN and other global governance levels).  I think we need to write back to those responsible for this process that , thanks but no thanks, you tell us how many CS sepakers you want and we have a process of selection for CS reps and we will deliver the names by the date you want.
>>> 
>>> May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to WSIS process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at the earliest. Before these mentioned deadlines pass.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....
>>> 
>>> Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the co-facilitators against such a process of big business sitting over decisions on CS reps. It seems to have had no effect.
>>> 
>>> A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the IGF MAG, led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer, to institute a method of selections of non gov MAG members by a committee of older non gov MAG members. I was able to attend MAG meetings in those days as a Special Advisor to the chair. I opposed such a process of CS nominee selection by a committee that included big business and technical community  (read the ICANN/ ISOC system). I was able to get the support of a few CS MAG members in the room, and I distinctly remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in this regard, and perhaps a person or two more whose names may have dropped from my memory (my apologies).... And because of the CS opposition this problematic move had to be abandoned.  Now it seems to be coming back from another door, and we need to stand up against it once again.
>>> 
>>> Again, we have very little turnaround time here. 
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>> On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: NGO News <ngonews at un.org>
>>>> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
>>>> Subject: [NGO News:] Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>> To: crossini at publicknowledge.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Deadlines:           
>>>> 
>>>> 8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee
>>>> 
>>>> 12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles
>>>> 
>>>> The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the UN Headquarters in New York.
>>>> 
>>>> This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as areas for future actions.
>>>> 
>>>> To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the form available here. Applications will be accepted from 30 October to 12 November 2015.
>>>> 
>>>> A Selection Committee will be established in order to ensure broad and inclusive participation of stakeholders in the high-level meeting. Applications to the Selection Committee will be accepted from 30 October to 8 November 2015. To learn more about the Selection Committee, please see the Terms of Reference by clicking on this link. To apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee, please complete the form available here.
>>>> 
>>>> Background
>>>> 
>>>> In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society," and ushered in an era of harnessing the power of information and communication technology to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action established targets and the eleven action lines, which guide development in specific areas.
>>>> 
>>>> The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon the achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis Agenda addressing additional issues, such as financing and internet governance. Paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed by the General Assembly in resolution 60/252, requested the General Assembly to undertake the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of WSIS in 2015.  In response, the General Assembly in resolution 68/302, decided that the overall review will be concluded by a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly, to be preceded by an intergovernmental process that also takes into account inputs from all relevant stakeholders of WSIS.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> -- 
>>>>  
>>>> Carolina Rossini
>>>> Vice President, International Policy and Strategy 
>>>> Public Knowledge
>>>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
>>>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> -- 
>>>>  
>>>> Carolina Rossini
>>>> Vice President, International Policy
>>>> Public Knowledge
>>>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
>>>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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:
>     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/20151031/a34b96b7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Oct 31 07:10:11 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:10:11 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <8587F3C3-613F-4596-B959-25BB895DB88E@gp-digital.org>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net> <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba> <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net> <56347496.9040002@itforchange.net> <00172661A97441C685D1A0F64770BB66@Toshiba> <8587F3C3-613F-4596-B959-25BB895DB88E@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <36A23804-6254-4478-BB3A-85950D7370F4@consensus.pro>

Dear Lea, Parminder, and others,

FYI, the process below - like that previously for CS - is a standard operatiing process for NY now as it is seen by the 38th floor, and the PGA’s office, as being a real success story in getting interesting voices whom existing selection processes might not have surfaced. The person at NGLS who pioneered this with the climate summit in 2014 was just given an award by the Secretary-General personally for her efforts <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=b21d8b63-9909-4a07-b3c2-5b10050f2743&c=47897580-6ef2-11e5-8573-d4ae5284205e&ch=48688ae0-6ef2-11e5-8694-d4ae5284205e> - she’s actually a committed and really tremendous person who genuinely feels a passion for ensuring CS voices are effective at the UN named Susan Alzner. All of this suggests that the UN will probably resist changing a process that they just awarded because of requests that you all may make.

Nothing wrong with making a point about this, but at the same time I would also put some effort into the selection committee and ensuring selectors put themselves forward that you believe will make good choices, including perhaps a fulsome consultation with the broader community. Anyone who wants to talk to Susan let me know, I’d be glad to introduce you.

Regards, Nick

> On 31 Oct 2015, at 11:42, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ian, Parminder,
> 
> Thanks for putting this on our agenda. Not against taking a stand on this. We have precedent with the IGF MAG, so could point to that. Although not ideal, UN DESA did take on 9/10 CSCG recommendations in the last MAG intake. And seeing as the MAG selection process is still something that needs improvement, we could leverage this effort (if successful) in the next round of MAG nominations.
> 
> Going beyond the principle, I'd also be interested to hear from CS who were sitting on the selection committee for the July WSIS event (I think the UN used the same selection mechanism). Did that work at all? Would the final selection of CS reps at the July event been different had CS had control over the process?
> 
> While we're on the topic, Ian, does the CSCG actively monitor UN calls for CS representation in relevant spaces? For instance, did the CSCG ever discuss the call for nominations for the Adis Ababa Technology Facilitation Mechanism Advisory Group? The call has now passed (last weekend I think), and IMO it's a real shame that we didn't have a broader CS discussion about this. The TFM is passing under people's radar, but could end up being influential in the broader IG ecosystem.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Lea
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 31 Oct 2015, at 08:08, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Is there general agreement we should write something pointing this out and asking for a process where CS chooses its own reps?
>> 
>> Perhaps we could ask for UNDESA to forward CS names submitted to us and we will advise our choices?
>> 
>> Interested in other opinions on this.... we would have to move quickly...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 6:58 PM
>> To: Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>> 
>> This is what para 3 of part I of the section on roadmap of the NetMundial outcome document says:
>> 
>> "Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open , democratic, and transparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self - manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountable mechanisms." (Emphasis added)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>> 
>>>> While I agree with your analysis,
>>> 
>>> Ian, I am not sure you are seeing it the way I am. This is not about 4-5 of us getting a few minutes from the podium. This is about civil society representation will be chosen in the IG space. And if you really feel it the way i do, why would you not agree to write as such to those in charge of the process.
>>> 
>>>> I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be changed in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest we make.
>>> 
>>> As I said, it does not matter if it changes. There is a larger structural point here. On the other hand, I am about 90 percent sure that if all groups involved in CSCG writes that this is not right, and please let us do our own selection they would agree. Civil society seems to have forgotten to leverage its legitimacy, and we seem to cave in to just about everything, a being beyond us to influence. This is not how it should be at all,
>>> 
>>>> So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved, and from that position make a strong statement that the process is flawed and problematic from our point of view.
>>> 
>>> Are you saying that the chosen speakers will speak from the podium that this process is flawed, and in this way? Please be clear. But if we are ready to have our speakers speak about it at the high level meeting, why would we not want to write about it to the co-facilitators and the concerned UN bureaucracy? Isnt that much simpler, and at least have the potential of meaningful impact.
>>> 
>>>> I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are able to correct some excesses from our point of view, but certainly not all.
>>> 
>>> Again, did not understand. What excesses, and how are they corrected?
>>>> 
>>>> However that’s just a personal point of view.  We have just opened a discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
>>>> 
>>>> One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can according to this process are:
>>> 
>>> These criteria are for those individuals who want to apply to be on the multistakeholder selection committee. My proposal is to disassociate CS selection from this multistakeholder selection process, and ask for CSCG to do it (I find it highly likely that they'd agree). So, the issue of the creteria you mention simply does not apply to the proposal I am making and seeking your and other people's views on.
>>> 
>>>> Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) • Organizations accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011 to 2015 • Organizations with observer status with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development • Attendees of the UNESCO WSIS+10 - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS - Connecting the Dots Conference • Organizations accredited to the Financing for Development (FFD) process • Organizations accredited to the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 • Organizations already accredited to the WSIS+10 process (July and October meetings)
>>>> 
>>>> So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our nominations as representatives of civil society organisations who do fit one at least of the above criteria.
>>> 
>>> I am not asking for the CSCG to get involved with this multistakeholder selection process. On the contrary, I am asking for us to disassociate from it.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is roughly that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it may not be easy to find people able to represent us. I believe that if we are involved we should try to fill both civil society slots on the selection panel. But that will have to be as two separate nominations (backed by CSCG) from different CS groups.
>>> 
>>> Again, you are speaking of CSCG getting involved with the current process, which is fundamentally different from my proposal to ask for CS nominations to be taken off the multistakeholder process, and be taken over by CSCG itself. Same about the rest of your email below.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ian, lets look at it in two parts. Do the involved CS groups agree that other stakeholders  - big business, gov, ICANN/ ISOC - should not be involved in selection of its reps? Yes or no. If yes, then let us that put down in a letter. I am happy to fight the case, but if we have such a position and want to fight the case. We cannot keep citing expediency for just everything. But if we are ok with such a process, that is a different matter, and let different groups and individuals give their views... Their has to be some limit to - we agree it is wrong, but....
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we have to do so this week.
>>>> 
>>>> And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will not be standing again, as various factors are making it difficult for me to maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I think it is time for one of our very talented (and younger) members to take over.  CSCG is currently drafting an EOI to seek a new independent Chair, with the aim of opening that process before IGF so that people get a chance to discuss it while many are present in Brazil. So the replacement process hopefully will complete by the end of this year.
>>>> 
>>>> So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone who has an interest in working with CSCG as part of this particular process; I don’t necessarily want to be involved if we have good reps able to consult with CSCG members. If anyone is interested in this and wants to contact me privately to assist in this way,  I would be happy to discuss further and approach CSCG as regards their involvement.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for opening up a discussion on this.
>>>> 
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
>>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>> 
>>>> Please see the below announcement.
>>>> 
>>>> It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system of civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for more substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder committees, meaning that big business and technical community gets a veto over civil society rep selection. (Do remember here that 'technical community' here is not that odd free and open software group volunteering their time in supporting government schools or the such. This term is accepted in the IG world now to denote those who work for and represent organisations engaged with technical governance of the Internet, and thus represent a governance status quo group. The semantic confusion about the term, as being people with technical capacities, is deliberate in order to utilise a certain legitimacy for what is a power based governance system.)
>>>> 
>>>> The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.
>>>> 
>>>> This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks that I work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely protective of its independence, which includes the right to choose its own nominees (for instance, any efforts at national govs 'clearing' civil society reps from their countries has been strongly resisted at the UN and other global governance levels).  I think we need to write back to those responsible for this process that , thanks but no thanks, you tell us how many CS sepakers you want and we have a process of selection for CS reps and we will deliver the names by the date you want.
>>>> 
>>>> May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to WSIS process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at the earliest. Before these mentioned deadlines pass.
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....
>>>> 
>>>> Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the co-facilitators against such a process of big business sitting over decisions on CS reps. It seems to have had no effect.
>>>> 
>>>> A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the IGF MAG, led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer, to institute a method of selections of non gov MAG members by a committee of older non gov MAG members. I was able to attend MAG meetings in those days as a Special Advisor to the chair. I opposed such a process of CS nominee selection by a committee that included big business and technical community  (read the ICANN/ ISOC system). I was able to get the support of a few CS MAG members in the room, and I distinctly remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in this regard, and perhaps a person or two more whose names may have dropped from my memory (my apologies).... And because of the CS opposition this problematic move had to be abandoned.  Now it seems to be coming back from another door, and we need to stand up against it once again.
>>>> 
>>>> Again, we have very little turnaround time here.
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>> On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: NGO News <ngonews at un.org <mailto:ngonews at un.org>>
>>>>> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
>>>>> Subject: [NGO News:] Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>>> To: crossini at publicknowledge.org <mailto:crossini at publicknowledge.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Deadlines:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee
>>>>> 
>>>>> 12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles
>>>>> 
>>>>> The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the UN Headquarters in New York.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as areas for future actions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the form available here <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ffRSw8C5UGYRKrzdpCiWnyc2EMVTbmZ1SVGNnhs0FcQ/viewform>. Applications will be accepted from 30 October to 12 November 2015.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A Selection Committee will be established in order to ensure broad and inclusive participation of stakeholders in the high-level meeting. Applications to the Selection Committee will be accepted from 30 October to 8 November 2015. To learn more about the Selection Committee, please see the Terms of Reference by clicking on this link <http://csonet.org/content/documents/WSIS+10_ToR_Steering_Committee.pdf>. To apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee, please complete the form available here <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pzCRKLri16XUMNYNA9QECFnhCrO9Ub7ex0Ho2vdYp2k/viewform>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Background
>>>>> 
>>>>> In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society," and ushered in an era of harnessing the power of information and communication technology to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action established targets and the eleven action lines, which guide development in specific areas.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon the achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis Agenda addressing additional issues, such as financing and internet governance. Paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed by the General Assembly in resolution 60/252, requested the General Assembly to undertake the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of WSIS in 2015.  In response, the General Assembly in resolution 68/302, decided that the overall review will be concluded by a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly, to be preceded by an intergovernmental process that also takes into account inputs from all relevant stakeholders of WSIS.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Carolina Rossini
>>>>> Vice President, International Policy and Strategy
>>>>> Public Knowledge
>>>>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>
>>>>> + 1 6176979389 |  <>skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Carolina Rossini
>>>>> Vice President, International Policy
>>>>> Public Knowledge
>>>>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>
>>>>> + 1 6176979389 |  <>skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      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 <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 <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 <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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:
>>     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 <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/20151031/50be972c/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/20151031/50be972c/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 ekenyanito at gmail.com  Sat Oct 31 07:22:42 2015
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:22:42 +0300
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <36A23804-6254-4478-BB3A-85950D7370F4@consensus.pro>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net>
	<E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba>
	<56347293.7090103@itforchange.net>
	<56347496.9040002@itforchange.net>
	<00172661A97441C685D1A0F64770BB66@Toshiba>
	<8587F3C3-613F-4596-B959-25BB895DB88E@gp-digital.org>
	<36A23804-6254-4478-BB3A-85950D7370F4@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeGwX6n8axTvMtRv6-m068BcsFJ+2ogaM5mTEkHGeX+=Hw@mail.gmail.com>

+1 to Lea's questions/ views.


--

Best Regards,
​​
*Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
Twitter: @ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1

On 31 October 2015 at 14:10, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> Dear Lea, Parminder, and others,
>
> FYI, the process below - like that previously for CS - is a standard
> operatiing process for NY now as it is seen by the 38th floor, and the
> PGA’s office, as being a real success story in getting interesting voices
> whom existing selection processes might not have surfaced. The person at
> NGLS who pioneered this with the climate summit in 2014 was just given an
> award by the Secretary-General personally for her efforts
> <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=b21d8b63-9909-4a07-b3c2-5b10050f2743&c=47897580-6ef2-11e5-8573-d4ae5284205e&ch=48688ae0-6ef2-11e5-8694-d4ae5284205e> -
> she’s actually a committed and really tremendous person who genuinely feels
> a passion for ensuring CS voices are effective at the UN named Susan
> Alzner. All of this suggests that the UN will probably resist changing a
> process that they just awarded because of requests that you all may make.
>
> Nothing wrong with making a point about this, but at the same time I would
> also put some effort into the selection committee and ensuring selectors
> put themselves forward that you believe will make good choices, including
> perhaps a fulsome consultation with the broader community. Anyone who wants
> to talk to Susan let me know, I’d be glad to introduce you.
>
> Regards, Nick
>
> On 31 Oct 2015, at 11:42, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ian, Parminder,
>
> Thanks for putting this on our agenda. Not against taking a stand on this.
> We have precedent with the IGF MAG, so could point to that. Although not
> ideal, UN DESA did take on 9/10 CSCG recommendations in the last MAG
> intake. And seeing as the MAG selection process is still something that
> needs improvement, we could leverage this effort (if successful) in the
> next round of MAG nominations.
>
> Going beyond the principle, I'd also be interested to hear from CS who
> were sitting on the selection committee for the July WSIS event (I think
> the UN used the same selection mechanism). Did that work at all? Would the
> final selection of CS reps at the July event been different had CS had
> control over the process?
>
> While we're on the topic, Ian, does the CSCG actively monitor UN calls for
> CS representation in relevant spaces? For instance, did the CSCG ever
> discuss the call for nominations for the Adis Ababa Technology Facilitation
> Mechanism Advisory Group? The call has now passed (last weekend I think),
> and IMO it's a real shame that we didn't have a broader CS discussion about
> this. The TFM is passing under people's radar, but could end up being
> influential in the broader IG ecosystem.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lea
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Oct 2015, at 08:08, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> Is there general agreement we should write something pointing this out and
> asking for a process where CS chooses its own reps?
>
> Perhaps we could ask for UNDESA to forward CS names submitted to us and we
> will advise our choices?
>
> Interested in other opinions on this.... we would have to move quickly...
>
>
>
> *From:* parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 6:58 PM
> *To:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination:
> Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>
> This is what para 3 of part I of the section on roadmap of the NetMundial
> outcome document says:
>
> "Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet
> governance processes should be selected through open , democratic, and
> transparent processes. Different *stakeholder groups should self - manage
> their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and
> accountable mechanism*s." (Emphasis added)
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> Hi Parminder,
>
> While I agree with your analysis,
>
>
> Ian, I am not sure you are seeing it the way I am. This is not about 4-5
> of us getting a few minutes from the podium. This is about civil society
> representation will be chosen in the IG space. And if you really feel it
> the way i do, why would you not agree to write as such to those in charge
> of the process.
>
> I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be changed
> in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest we make.
>
>
> As I said, it does not matter if it changes. There is a larger structural
> point here. On the other hand, I am about 90 percent sure that if all
> groups involved in CSCG writes that this is not right, and please let us do
> our own selection they would agree. Civil society seems to have forgotten
> to leverage its legitimacy, and we seem to cave in to just about
> everything, a being beyond us to influence. This is not how it should be at
> all,
>
> So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved, and from
> that position make a strong statement that the process is flawed and
> problematic from our point of view.
>
>
> Are you saying that the chosen speakers will speak from the podium that
> this process is flawed, and in this way? Please be clear. But if we are
> ready to have our speakers speak about it at the high level meeting, why
> would we not want to write about it to the co-facilitators and the
> concerned UN bureaucracy? Isnt that much simpler, and at least have the
> potential of meaningful impact.
>
> I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are able to
> correct some excesses from our point of view, but certainly not all.
>
>
> Again, did not understand. What excesses, and how are they corrected?
>
>
> However that’s just a personal point of view.  We have just opened a
> discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
>
> One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can according
> to this process are:
>
>
> These criteria are for those individuals who want to apply to be on the
> multistakeholder selection committee. My proposal is to disassociate CS
> selection from this multistakeholder selection process, and ask for CSCG to
> do it (I find it highly likely that they'd agree). So, the issue of the
> creteria you mention simply does not apply to the proposal I am making and
> seeking your and other people's views on.
>
> Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic
> and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the World Summit on the
> Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) • Organizations
> accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011 to 2015 • Organizations with
> observer status with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
> • Attendees of the UNESCO WSIS+10 - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS -
> Connecting the Dots Conference • Organizations accredited to the Financing
> for Development (FFD) process • Organizations accredited to the United
> Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 • Organizations already
> accredited to the WSIS+10 process (July and October meetings)
>
> So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our nominations as
> representatives of civil society organisations who do fit one at least of
> the above criteria.
>
>
> I am not asking for the CSCG to get involved with this multistakeholder
> selection process. On the contrary, I am asking for us to disassociate from
> it.
>
>
> Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is roughly
> that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it may not be easy to
> find people able to represent us. I believe that if we are involved we
> should try to fill both civil society slots on the selection panel. But
> that will have to be as two separate nominations (backed by CSCG) from
> different CS groups.
>
>
> Again, you are speaking of CSCG getting involved with the current process,
> which is fundamentally different from my proposal to ask for CS nominations
> to be taken off the multistakeholder process, and be taken over by CSCG
> itself. Same about the rest of your email below.
>
>
> Ian, lets look at it in two parts. Do the involved CS groups agree that
> other stakeholders  - big business, gov, ICANN/ ISOC - should not be
> involved in selection of its reps? Yes or no. If yes, then let us that put
> down in a letter. I am happy to fight the case, but if we have such a
> position and want to fight the case. We cannot keep citing expediency for
> just everything. But if we are ok with such a process, that is a different
> matter, and let different groups and individuals give their views... Their
> has to be some limit to - we agree it is wrong, but....
>
> parminder
>
>
> And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we have to
> do so this week.
>
> And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the
> Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will not be
> standing again, as various factors are making it difficult for me to
> maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I think it is time for
> one of our very talented (and younger) members to take over.  CSCG is
> currently drafting an EOI to seek a new independent Chair, with the aim of
> opening that process before IGF so that people get a chance to discuss it
> while many are present in Brazil. So the replacement process hopefully will
> complete by the end of this year.
>
> So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone who has
> an interest in working with CSCG as part of this particular process; I
> don’t necessarily want to be involved if we have good reps able to consult
> with CSCG members. If anyone is interested in this and wants to contact me
> privately to assist in this way,  I would be happy to discuss further and
> approach CSCG as regards their involvement.
>
> Thanks for opening up a discussion on this.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
> Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>
> Please see the below announcement.
>
> It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system of
> civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for more
> substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder committees, meaning
> that big business and technical community gets a veto over civil society
> rep selection. (Do remember here that 'technical community' here is not
> that odd free and open software group volunteering their time in supporting
> government schools or the such. This term is accepted in the IG world now
> to denote those who work for and represent organisations engaged with
> technical governance of the Internet, and thus represent a governance
> status quo group. The semantic confusion about the term, as being people
> with technical capacities, is deliberate in order to utilise a certain
> legitimacy for what is a power based governance system.)
>
> The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.
>
> This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks that I
> work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely protective of its
> independence, which includes the right to choose its own nominees (for
> instance, any efforts at national govs 'clearing' civil society reps from
> their countries has been strongly resisted at the UN and other global
> governance levels).  I think we need to write back to those responsible for
> this process that , thanks but no thanks, you tell us how many CS sepakers
> you want and we have a process of selection for CS reps and we will deliver
> the names by the date you want.
>
> May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to WSIS
> process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at the earliest.
> Before these mentioned deadlines pass.
>
> Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....
>
> Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the co-facilitators
> against such a process of big business sitting over decisions on CS reps.
> It seems to have had no effect.
>
> A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the IGF MAG,
> led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer, to institute a
> method of selections of non gov MAG members by a committee of older non gov
> MAG members. I was able to attend MAG meetings in those days as a Special
> Advisor to the chair. I opposed such a process of CS nominee selection by a
> committee that included big business and technical community  (read the
> ICANN/ ISOC system). I was able to get the support of a few CS MAG members
> in the room, and I distinctly remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in this
> regard, and perhaps a person or two more whose names may have dropped from
> my memory (my apologies).... And because of the CS opposition this
> problematic move had to be abandoned.  Now it seems to be coming back from
> another door, and we need to stand up against it once again.
>
> Again, we have very little turnaround time here.
>
> parminder
>
> On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: NGO News <ngonews at un.org>
> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
> Subject: [NGO News:] Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the
> General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
> To: crossini at publicknowledge.org
>
>
> *Deadlines:            *
>
> *8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee*
>
> *12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles*
>
> *The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of the
> implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
> Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the UN Headquarters in
> New York.*
>
> This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth
> discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes,
> including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as areas for future
> actions.
>
> *To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the form
> available here
> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ffRSw8C5UGYRKrzdpCiWnyc2EMVTbmZ1SVGNnhs0FcQ/viewform>*.
> Applications will be accepted from *30 October to* *12 November 2015*.
>
> *A Selection Committee will be established* in order to ensure broad and
> inclusive participation of stakeholders in the high-level meeting.
> Applications to the Selection Committee will be accepted from *30 October
> to 8 November 2015*. To learn more about the Selection Committee, please
> see the Terms of Reference by clicking on this link
> <http://csonet.org/content/documents/WSIS+10_ToR_Steering_Committee.pdf>. *To
> apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee, please
> complete the form available **here*
> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pzCRKLri16XUMNYNA9QECFnhCrO9Ub7ex0Ho2vdYp2k/viewform>
> *.*
>
> *Background*
>
> In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the World Summit
> on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common desire and commitment to
> build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information
> Society," and ushered in an era of harnessing the power of information and
> communication technology to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium
> Development Goals (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action established
> targets and the eleven action lines, which guide development in specific
> areas.
>
> The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon the
> achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis Agenda addressing
> additional issues, such as financing and internet governance. Paragraph 111
> of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed by the General Assembly in resolution 60/252,
> requested the General Assembly to undertake the overall review of the
> implementation of the outcomes of WSIS in 2015.  In response, the General
> Assembly in resolution 68/302, decided that the overall review will be
> concluded by a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly, to be
> preceded by an intergovernmental process that also takes into account
> inputs from all relevant stakeholders of WSIS.
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Carolina Rossini *
>
> *Vice President, International Policy and Strategy *
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
> --
>
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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/20151031/36f79c77/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Oct 31 07:37:45 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:37:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] Technology Facilitation Mechanism (was Re: [bestbits]
 NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly
 High-level Meeting on WSIS+10)
In-Reply-To: <CAHwnKeGwX6n8axTvMtRv6-m068BcsFJ+2ogaM5mTEkHGeX+=Hw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net> <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba> <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net> <56347496.9040002@itforchange.net> <00172661A97441C685D1A0F64770BB66@Toshiba> <8587F3C3-613F-4596-B959-25BB895DB88E@gp-digital.org> <36A23804-6254-4478-BB3A-85950D7370F4@consensus.pro> <CAHwnKeGwX6n8axTvMtRv6-m068BcsFJ+2ogaM5mTEkHGeX+=Hw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04513726-83AC-40D3-9193-C0023A6586AC@consensus.pro>

Dear Ephraim,

I think you have just said something really important. I remember posting to the ISOC policy list about the TFM very early, right after it was agreed by the UNGA in late July, and I provided further updates to try and generate interest subsequently. I saw very little response or reply from anyone about it and as you say the deadline is now passed. Of those nominated or who put their names forward there were very few from the traditional IG or WSIS CS community - and few from other WSIS communities either.

I actually think the TFM will end up being a key, if not the key, forum where ICT4D issues are discussed and taken forward. Its annual forum will be in New York immediately before the main political SDG follow-up meeting each year and so it will naturally attract very high level engagement, and since it has a multi-stakeholder model that is actually quite similar to the IGF, it seems to me the IGF will need to think very carefully about how to stay politically relevant. I’m sorry to say it …

More about the TFM below from something I drafted for others:

>> Some of you have seen messages in various email lists on the the Technology Facilitation Mechanism <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/technology/facilitationmechanism> (“TFM”) which was created as a part of the package known as the “Addis Ababa Action Agenda” that the UNGA passed in late July; the Agenda is very comprehensive but fundamentally deals with how the SDGs are to be financed and is therefore of high political significance. The TFM is the part of it that seeks to bring together Science and Technology writ large to bear on meeting the SDGs.  The TFM was launched in New York jointly by France and Brazil at a meeting on the 26th <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=13&nr=1746&menu=1634>.
>> 
>> The TFM includes  three parts:
>> An interagency coordination process for the UN system led by 8 IGOs - links are to info on their focal points: DESA <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=6&nr=278&menu=1455&template=375>,UNEP <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=6&nr=64&menu=1455&template=375>, UNIDO <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=6&nr=71&menu=1455&template=375>, UNESCO <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=6&nr=67&menu=1455&template=375>, UNCTAD <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=6&nr=59&menu=1455&template=375>, ITU <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=6&nr=295&menu=1455&template=375>, WIPO <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=6&nr=289&menu=1455&template=375>, World Bank Group <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=6&nr=76&menu=1455&template=375>.
>> A multistakeholder forum (annual)  <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/technology/facilitationmechanism> as part of its work, guided by 10 non-state participants, that reports at the highest level of SDG follow-up and which meets in NY each year.
>> An online portal aggregating everything related to ICTs and STI in SDG follow-up.
>> Why should WSIS-focussed stakeholders care?
>> The Multistakeholder forum is to be held just before the high-level meeting each year that is for follow-up to the SDGs and the forum reports to that meeting. This gives it real political weight because ICT ministers will quite naturally want to participate so they can be connected to SDG follow up.
>> Anything connected to the SDGs immediately has much higher political importance in many countries than WSIS does. This is because, frankly, there are in aggregate hundreds of billions - and maybe more - development dollars that will be spent in pursuit of achieving the SDGs and given that this is spent in developing countries that means it matters.
>> To the extent that the TFM becomes the nexus through which ICT-related spending on development is related to the SDGs that means it is automatically politically connected to all that money.
>> If the IGF has no relation to the TFM’s multistakeholder forum (and development issues) then it risks withering at the level of political significance - for the simple reason that it far away from the political centre in NY where ICTs related to the SDGs will be discussed and has no direct connection to the UN interagency task team that the TFM has created.
>> 
>> Right now, the TFM is new and it has no agenda or work programme. I believe it is essential that to prioritise working with member-states and the lead UN agencies to ensure it gets a good agenda.
>> 
>> There are only 10 slots for non-state participants. The TFM is bigger than just ICTs so only some of those 10 slots will go to Internet/ICT focussed groups. We should care - very much - about who gets those slots.


> On 31 Oct 2015, at 12:22, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito <ekenyanito at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> While we're on the topic, Ian, does the CSCG actively monitor UN calls for CS representation in relevant spaces? For instance, did the CSCG ever discuss the call for nominations for the Adis Ababa Technology Facilitation Mechanism Advisory Group? The call has now passed (last weekend I think), and IMO it's a real shame that we didn't have a broader CS discussion about this. The TFM is passing under people's radar, but could end up being influential in the broader IG ecosystem.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151031/52e30da8/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/20151031/52e30da8/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Sat Oct 31 08:24:44 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 13:24:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <36A23804-6254-4478-BB3A-85950D7370F4@consensus.pro>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net> <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba> <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net> <56347496.9040002@itforchange.net> <00172661A97441C685D1A0F64770BB66@Toshiba> <8587F3C3-613F-4596-B959-25BB895DB88E@gp-digital.org> <36A23804-6254-4478-BB3A-85950D7370F4@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <75C4426E-2D1B-4BB6-905A-E2928A7348BD@consensus.pro>

An update, DESA’s NGO Branch has decided to take the process that NGLS has traditionally run and run it themselves instead. The responsible person there is Alberto Padova, Acting Chief of DESA NGO Branch - padova at un.org

> On 31 Oct 2015, at 12:10, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> 
> Dear Lea, Parminder, and others,
> 
> FYI, the process below - like that previously for CS - is a standard operatiing process for NY now as it is seen by the 38th floor, and the PGA’s office, as being a real success story in getting interesting voices whom existing selection processes might not have surfaced. The person at NGLS who pioneered this with the climate summit in 2014 was just given an award by the Secretary-General personally for her efforts <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=b21d8b63-9909-4a07-b3c2-5b10050f2743&c=47897580-6ef2-11e5-8573-d4ae5284205e&ch=48688ae0-6ef2-11e5-8694-d4ae5284205e> - she’s actually a committed and really tremendous person who genuinely feels a passion for ensuring CS voices are effective at the UN named Susan Alzner. All of this suggests that the UN will probably resist changing a process that they just awarded because of requests that you all may make.
> 
> Nothing wrong with making a point about this, but at the same time I would also put some effort into the selection committee and ensuring selectors put themselves forward that you believe will make good choices, including perhaps a fulsome consultation with the broader community. Anyone who wants to talk to Susan let me know, I’d be glad to introduce you.
> 
> Regards, Nick
> 
>> On 31 Oct 2015, at 11:42, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org <mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ian, Parminder,
>> 
>> Thanks for putting this on our agenda. Not against taking a stand on this. We have precedent with the IGF MAG, so could point to that. Although not ideal, UN DESA did take on 9/10 CSCG recommendations in the last MAG intake. And seeing as the MAG selection process is still something that needs improvement, we could leverage this effort (if successful) in the next round of MAG nominations.
>> 
>> Going beyond the principle, I'd also be interested to hear from CS who were sitting on the selection committee for the July WSIS event (I think the UN used the same selection mechanism). Did that work at all? Would the final selection of CS reps at the July event been different had CS had control over the process?
>> 
>> While we're on the topic, Ian, does the CSCG actively monitor UN calls for CS representation in relevant spaces? For instance, did the CSCG ever discuss the call for nominations for the Adis Ababa Technology Facilitation Mechanism Advisory Group? The call has now passed (last weekend I think), and IMO it's a real shame that we didn't have a broader CS discussion about this. The TFM is passing under people's radar, but could end up being influential in the broader IG ecosystem.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Lea
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On 31 Oct 2015, at 08:08, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Is there general agreement we should write something pointing this out and asking for a process where CS chooses its own reps?
>>> 
>>> Perhaps we could ask for UNDESA to forward CS names submitted to us and we will advise our choices?
>>> 
>>> Interested in other opinions on this.... we would have to move quickly...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 6:58 PM
>>> To: Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>> 
>>> This is what para 3 of part I of the section on roadmap of the NetMundial outcome document says:
>>> 
>>> "Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open , democratic, and transparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self - manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountable mechanisms." (Emphasis added)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>>> 
>>>>> While I agree with your analysis,
>>>> 
>>>> Ian, I am not sure you are seeing it the way I am. This is not about 4-5 of us getting a few minutes from the podium. This is about civil society representation will be chosen in the IG space. And if you really feel it the way i do, why would you not agree to write as such to those in charge of the process.
>>>> 
>>>>> I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be changed in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest we make.
>>>> 
>>>> As I said, it does not matter if it changes. There is a larger structural point here. On the other hand, I am about 90 percent sure that if all groups involved in CSCG writes that this is not right, and please let us do our own selection they would agree. Civil society seems to have forgotten to leverage its legitimacy, and we seem to cave in to just about everything, a being beyond us to influence. This is not how it should be at all,
>>>> 
>>>>> So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved, and from that position make a strong statement that the process is flawed and problematic from our point of view.
>>>> 
>>>> Are you saying that the chosen speakers will speak from the podium that this process is flawed, and in this way? Please be clear. But if we are ready to have our speakers speak about it at the high level meeting, why would we not want to write about it to the co-facilitators and the concerned UN bureaucracy? Isnt that much simpler, and at least have the potential of meaningful impact.
>>>> 
>>>>> I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are able to correct some excesses from our point of view, but certainly not all.
>>>> 
>>>> Again, did not understand. What excesses, and how are they corrected?
>>>>> 
>>>>> However that’s just a personal point of view.  We have just opened a discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can according to this process are:
>>>> 
>>>> These criteria are for those individuals who want to apply to be on the multistakeholder selection committee. My proposal is to disassociate CS selection from this multistakeholder selection process, and ask for CSCG to do it (I find it highly likely that they'd agree). So, the issue of the creteria you mention simply does not apply to the proposal I am making and seeking your and other people's views on.
>>>> 
>>>>> Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) • Organizations accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011 to 2015 • Organizations with observer status with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development • Attendees of the UNESCO WSIS+10 - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS - Connecting the Dots Conference • Organizations accredited to the Financing for Development (FFD) process • Organizations accredited to the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 • Organizations already accredited to the WSIS+10 process (July and October meetings)
>>>>> 
>>>>> So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our nominations as representatives of civil society organisations who do fit one at least of the above criteria.
>>>> 
>>>> I am not asking for the CSCG to get involved with this multistakeholder selection process. On the contrary, I am asking for us to disassociate from it.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is roughly that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it may not be easy to find people able to represent us. I believe that if we are involved we should try to fill both civil society slots on the selection panel. But that will have to be as two separate nominations (backed by CSCG) from different CS groups.
>>>> 
>>>> Again, you are speaking of CSCG getting involved with the current process, which is fundamentally different from my proposal to ask for CS nominations to be taken off the multistakeholder process, and be taken over by CSCG itself. Same about the rest of your email below.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ian, lets look at it in two parts. Do the involved CS groups agree that other stakeholders  - big business, gov, ICANN/ ISOC - should not be involved in selection of its reps? Yes or no. If yes, then let us that put down in a letter. I am happy to fight the case, but if we have such a position and want to fight the case. We cannot keep citing expediency for just everything. But if we are ok with such a process, that is a different matter, and let different groups and individuals give their views... Their has to be some limit to - we agree it is wrong, but....
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we have to do so this week.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will not be standing again, as various factors are making it difficult for me to maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I think it is time for one of our very talented (and younger) members to take over.  CSCG is currently drafting an EOI to seek a new independent Chair, with the aim of opening that process before IGF so that people get a chance to discuss it while many are present in Brazil. So the replacement process hopefully will complete by the end of this year.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone who has an interest in working with CSCG as part of this particular process; I don’t necessarily want to be involved if we have good reps able to consult with CSCG members. If anyone is interested in this and wants to contact me privately to assist in this way,  I would be happy to discuss further and approach CSCG as regards their involvement.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for opening up a discussion on this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
>>>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please see the below announcement.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system of civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for more substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder committees, meaning that big business and technical community gets a veto over civil society rep selection. (Do remember here that 'technical community' here is not that odd free and open software group volunteering their time in supporting government schools or the such. This term is accepted in the IG world now to denote those who work for and represent organisations engaged with technical governance of the Internet, and thus represent a governance status quo group. The semantic confusion about the term, as being people with technical capacities, is deliberate in order to utilise a certain legitimacy for what is a power based governance system.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks that I work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely protective of its independence, which includes the right to choose its own nominees (for instance, any efforts at national govs 'clearing' civil society reps from their countries has been strongly resisted at the UN and other global governance levels).  I think we need to write back to those responsible for this process that , thanks but no thanks, you tell us how many CS sepakers you want and we have a process of selection for CS reps and we will deliver the names by the date you want.
>>>>> 
>>>>> May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to WSIS process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at the earliest. Before these mentioned deadlines pass.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the co-facilitators against such a process of big business sitting over decisions on CS reps. It seems to have had no effect.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the IGF MAG, led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer, to institute a method of selections of non gov MAG members by a committee of older non gov MAG members. I was able to attend MAG meetings in those days as a Special Advisor to the chair. I opposed such a process of CS nominee selection by a committee that included big business and technical community  (read the ICANN/ ISOC system). I was able to get the support of a few CS MAG members in the room, and I distinctly remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in this regard, and perhaps a person or two more whose names may have dropped from my memory (my apologies).... And because of the CS opposition this problematic move had to be abandoned.  Now it seems to be coming back from another door, and we need to stand up against it once again.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Again, we have very little turnaround time here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: NGO News <ngonews at un.org <mailto:ngonews at un.org>>
>>>>>> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
>>>>>> Subject: [NGO News:] <news:]> Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>>>> To: crossini at publicknowledge.org <mailto:crossini at publicknowledge.org>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Deadlines:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the UN Headquarters in New York.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as areas for future actions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the form available here <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ffRSw8C5UGYRKrzdpCiWnyc2EMVTbmZ1SVGNnhs0FcQ/viewform>. Applications will be accepted from 30 October to 12 November 2015.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A Selection Committee will be established in order to ensure broad and inclusive participation of stakeholders in the high-level meeting. Applications to the Selection Committee will be accepted from 30 October to 8 November 2015. To learn more about the Selection Committee, please see the Terms of Reference by clicking on this link <http://csonet.org/content/documents/WSIS+10_ToR_Steering_Committee.pdf>. To apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee, please complete the form available here <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pzCRKLri16XUMNYNA9QECFnhCrO9Ub7ex0Ho2vdYp2k/viewform>.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Background
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society," and ushered in an era of harnessing the power of information and communication technology to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action established targets and the eleven action lines, which guide development in specific areas.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon the achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis Agenda addressing additional issues, such as financing and internet governance. Paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed by the General Assembly in resolution 60/252, requested the General Assembly to undertake the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of WSIS in 2015.  In response, the General Assembly in resolution 68/302, decided that the overall review will be concluded by a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly, to be preceded by an intergovernmental process that also takes into account inputs from all relevant stakeholders of WSIS.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Carolina Rossini
>>>>>> Vice President, International Policy and Strategy
>>>>>> Public Knowledge
>>>>>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>
>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 |  <>skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Carolina Rossini
>>>>>> Vice President, International Policy
>>>>>> Public Knowledge
>>>>>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>
>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 |  <>skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      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 <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 <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 <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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:
>>>     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 <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 <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151031/63a490d9/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/20151031/63a490d9/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Oct 31 08:43:41 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:13:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <36A23804-6254-4478-BB3A-85950D7370F4@consensus.pro>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net> <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba> <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net> <56347496.9040002@itforchange.net> <00172661A97441C685D1A0F64770BB66@Toshiba> <8587F3C3-613F-4596-B959-25BB895DB88E@gp-digital.org> <36A23804-6254-4478-BB3A-85950D7370F4@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <5634B77D.6080308@itforchange.net>

Nick

I am sure that you understand what is it that I am objecting to bec I
made it very clear in my email. I am *not* objecting to a novel process
that may be devised to set up a selection committee of civil society
persons to nominate civil society speakers. (Although unlike what may be
true in other areas, in IG area we precisely have such a self organising
system within the CS, which is an important point to keep in sight.)
What I am objecting to is the presence of business and technical
community members (ICANN/ ISOC), meaning non civil society members, in
any such selection committee..

Do you confirm that the climate summit process, that was rewarded, and
you say is now the accepted process, involved business members in the
selection committee that selected civil society speakers? I dont think
so, but I will let to comment on it.

If not, your arugments are quite beside the point here.

So lets focus on the issue which is under contention - to repeat, the
problem of business persons and tech community (read ICANN/ ISOC)
selecting CS reps... It is NOT this civil society nomination process or
that, *as long as the selection committee is made of civil society persons*.

parminder


On Saturday 31 October 2015 04:40 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Dear Lea, Parminder, and others,
>
> FYI, the process below - like that previously for CS - is a standard
> operatiing process for NY now as it is seen by the 38th floor, and the
> PGA’s office, as being a real success story in getting interesting
> voices whom existing selection processes might not have surfaced. The
> person at NGLS who pioneered this with the climate summit in 2014 was
> just given an award by the Secretary-General personally for her
> efforts
> <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=b21d8b63-9909-4a07-b3c2-5b10050f2743&c=47897580-6ef2-11e5-8573-d4ae5284205e&ch=48688ae0-6ef2-11e5-8694-d4ae5284205e> -
> she’s actually a committed and really tremendous person who genuinely
> feels a passion for ensuring CS voices are effective at the UN named
> Susan Alzner. All of this suggests that the UN will probably resist
> changing a process that they just awarded because of requests that you
> all may make.
>
> Nothing wrong with making a point about this, but at the same time I
> would also put some effort into the selection committee and ensuring
> selectors put themselves forward that you believe will make good
> choices, including perhaps a fulsome consultation with the broader
> community. Anyone who wants to talk to Susan let me know, I’d be glad
> to introduce you.
>
> Regards, Nick
>
>> On 31 Oct 2015, at 11:42, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org
>> <mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ian, Parminder,
>>
>> Thanks for putting this on our agenda. Not against taking a stand on
>> this. We have precedent with the IGF MAG, so could point to that.
>> Although not ideal, UN DESA did take on 9/10 CSCG recommendations in
>> the last MAG intake. And seeing as the MAG selection process is still
>> something that needs improvement, we could leverage this effort (if
>> successful) in the next round of MAG nominations.
>>
>> Going beyond the principle, I'd also be interested to hear from CS
>> who were sitting on the selection committee for the July WSIS event
>> (I think the UN used the same selection mechanism). Did that work at
>> all? Would the final selection of CS reps at the July event been
>> different had CS had control over the process? 
>>
>> While we're on the topic, Ian, does the CSCG actively monitor UN
>> calls for CS representation in relevant spaces? For instance, did the
>> CSCG ever discuss the call for nominations for the Adis Ababa
>> Technology Facilitation Mechanism Advisory Group? The call has now
>> passed (last weekend I think), and IMO it's a real shame that we
>> didn't have a broader CS discussion about this. The TFM is passing
>> under people's radar, but could end up being influential in the
>> broader IG ecosystem. 
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Lea
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 31 Oct 2015, at 08:08, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there general agreement we should write something pointing this
>>> out and asking for a process where CS chooses its own reps?
>>>  
>>> Perhaps we could ask for UNDESA to forward CS names submitted to us
>>> and we will advise our choices?
>>>  
>>> Interested in other opinions on this.... we would have to move
>>> quickly...
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 6:58 PM
>>> *To:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com> ;
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ;
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination:
>>> Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on
>>> WSIS+10
>>>  
>>> This is what para 3 of part I of the section on roadmap of the
>>> NetMundial outcome document says:
>>>
>>> "Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet
>>> governance processes should be selected through open , democratic,
>>> and transparent processes. Different /*stakeholder groups should
>>> self - manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known,
>>> well defined and accountable mechanism*/s." (Emphasis added)
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>>>  
>>>>> While I agree with your analysis,
>>>>
>>>> Ian, I am not sure you are seeing it the way I am. This is not
>>>> about 4-5 of us getting a few minutes from the podium. This is
>>>> about civil society representation will be chosen in the IG space.
>>>> And if you really feel it the way i do, why would you not agree to
>>>> write as such to those in charge of the process.
>>>>
>>>>> I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be
>>>>> changed in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest
>>>>> we make.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, it does not matter if it changes. There is a larger
>>>> structural point here. On the other hand, I am about 90 percent
>>>> sure that if all groups involved in CSCG writes that this is not
>>>> right, and please let us do our own selection they would agree.
>>>> Civil society seems to have forgotten to leverage its legitimacy,
>>>> and we seem to cave in to just about everything, a being beyond us
>>>> to influence. This is not how it should be at all,
>>>>
>>>>> So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved,
>>>>> and from that position make a strong statement that the process is
>>>>> flawed and problematic from our point of view.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that the chosen speakers will speak from the podium
>>>> that this process is flawed, and in this way? Please be clear. But
>>>> if we are ready to have our speakers speak about it at the high
>>>> level meeting, why would we not want to write about it to the
>>>> co-facilitators and the concerned UN bureaucracy? Isnt that much
>>>> simpler, and at least have the potential of meaningful impact.
>>>>
>>>>> I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are
>>>>> able to correct some excesses from our point of view, but
>>>>> certainly not all.
>>>>
>>>> Again, did not understand. What excesses, and how are they corrected?
>>>>>  
>>>>> However that’s just a personal point of view.  We have just opened
>>>>> a discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
>>>>>  
>>>>> One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can
>>>>> according to this process are:
>>>>
>>>> These criteria are for those individuals who want to apply to be on
>>>> the multistakeholder selection committee. My proposal is to
>>>> disassociate CS selection from this multistakeholder selection
>>>> process, and ask for CSCG to do it (I find it highly likely that
>>>> they'd agree). So, the issue of the creteria you mention simply
>>>> does not apply to the proposal I am making and seeking your and
>>>> other people's views on.
>>>>
>>>>> Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the
>>>>> Economic and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the
>>>>> World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and
>>>>> Tunis (2005) • Organizations accredited to the WSIS Forum held
>>>>> from 2011 to 2015 • Organizations with observer status with the
>>>>> United Nations Conference on Trade and Development • Attendees of
>>>>> the UNESCO WSIS+10 - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS -
>>>>> Connecting the Dots Conference • Organizations accredited to the
>>>>> Financing for Development (FFD) process • Organizations accredited
>>>>> to the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 •
>>>>> Organizations already accredited to the WSIS+10 process (July and
>>>>> October meetings)
>>>>>  
>>>>> So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our
>>>>> nominations as representatives of civil society organisations who
>>>>> do fit one at least of the above criteria.
>>>>
>>>> I am not asking for the CSCG to get involved with this
>>>> multistakeholder selection process. On the contrary, I am asking
>>>> for us to disassociate from it.
>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>> Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is
>>>>> roughly that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it
>>>>> may not be easy to find people able to represent us. I believe
>>>>> that if we are involved we should try to fill both civil society
>>>>> slots on the selection panel. But that will have to be as two
>>>>> separate nominations (backed by CSCG) from different CS groups.
>>>>
>>>> Again, you are speaking of CSCG getting involved with the current
>>>> process, which is fundamentally different from my proposal to ask
>>>> for CS nominations to be taken off the multistakeholder process,
>>>> and be taken over by CSCG itself. Same about the rest of your email
>>>> below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ian, lets look at it in two parts. Do the involved CS groups agree
>>>> that other stakeholders  - big business, gov, ICANN/ ISOC - should
>>>> not be involved in selection of its reps? Yes or no. If yes, then
>>>> let us that put down in a letter. I am happy to fight the case, but
>>>> if we have such a position and want to fight the case. We cannot
>>>> keep citing expediency for just everything. But if we are ok with
>>>> such a process, that is a different matter, and let different
>>>> groups and individuals give their views... Their has to be some
>>>> limit to - we agree it is wrong, but....
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>> And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we
>>>>> have to do so this week.
>>>>>  
>>>>> And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the
>>>>> Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will
>>>>> not be standing again, as various factors are making it difficult
>>>>> for me to maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I
>>>>> think it is time for one of our very talented (and younger)
>>>>> members to take over.  CSCG is currently drafting an EOI to seek a
>>>>> new independent Chair, with the aim of opening that process before
>>>>> IGF so that people get a chance to discuss it while many are
>>>>> present in Brazil. So the replacement process hopefully will
>>>>> complete by the end of this year.
>>>>>  
>>>>> So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone
>>>>> who has an interest in working with CSCG as part of this
>>>>> particular process; I don’t necessarily want to be involved if we
>>>>> have good reps able to consult with CSCG members. If anyone is
>>>>> interested in this and wants to contact me privately to assist in
>>>>> this way,  I would be happy to discuss further and approach CSCG
>>>>> as regards their involvement.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thanks for opening up a discussion on this.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
>>>>> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ;
>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
>>>>> Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>>>  
>>>>> Please see the below announcement.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a
>>>>> system of civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later
>>>>> also for more substantive roles, being selected by
>>>>> multistakeholder committees, meaning that big business and
>>>>> technical community gets a veto over civil society rep selection.
>>>>> (Do remember here that 'technical community' here is not that odd
>>>>> free and open software group volunteering their time in supporting
>>>>> government schools or the such. This term is accepted in the IG
>>>>> world now to denote those who work for and represent organisations
>>>>> engaged with technical governance of the Internet, and thus
>>>>> represent a governance status quo group. The semantic confusion
>>>>> about the term, as being people with technical capacities, is
>>>>> deliberate in order to utilise a certain legitimacy for what is a
>>>>> power based governance system.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks
>>>>> that I work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely
>>>>> protective of its independence, which includes the right to choose
>>>>> its own nominees (for instance, any efforts at national govs
>>>>> 'clearing' civil society reps from their countries has been
>>>>> strongly resisted at the UN and other global governance levels). 
>>>>> I think we need to write back to those responsible for this
>>>>> process that , thanks but no thanks, you tell us how many CS
>>>>> sepakers you want and we have a process of selection for CS reps
>>>>> and we will deliver the names by the date you want.
>>>>>
>>>>> May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter
>>>>> to WSIS process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy,
>>>>> at the earliest. Before these mentioned deadlines pass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....
>>>>>
>>>>> Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the
>>>>> co-facilitators against such a process of big business sitting
>>>>> over decisions on CS reps. It seems to have had no effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the
>>>>> IGF MAG, led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer,
>>>>> to institute a method of selections of non gov MAG members by a
>>>>> committee of older non gov MAG members. I was able to attend MAG
>>>>> meetings in those days as a Special Advisor to the chair. I
>>>>> opposed such a process of CS nominee selection by a committee that
>>>>> included big business and technical community  (read the ICANN/
>>>>> ISOC system). I was able to get the support of a few CS MAG
>>>>> members in the room, and I distinctly remember Graciala, Katitza,
>>>>> and Foaud in this regard, and perhaps a person or two more whose
>>>>> names may have dropped from my memory (my apologies).... And
>>>>> because of the CS opposition this problematic move had to be
>>>>> abandoned.  Now it seems to be coming back from another door, and
>>>>> we need to stand up against it once again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, we have very little turnaround time here.
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: *NGO News* <ngonews at un.org <mailto:ngonews at un.org>>
>>>>>> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
>>>>>> Subject: [NGO News:] Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at
>>>>>> the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>>>> To: crossini at publicknowledge.org
>>>>>> <mailto:crossini at publicknowledge.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Deadlines:            *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of
>>>>>> the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the
>>>>>> Information Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the
>>>>>> UN Headquarters in New York.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth
>>>>>> discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS
>>>>>> outcomes, including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as
>>>>>> areas for future actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the
>>>>>> form available here
>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ffRSw8C5UGYRKrzdpCiWnyc2EMVTbmZ1SVGNnhs0FcQ/viewform>*.
>>>>>> Applications will be accepted from *30 October to* *12 November
>>>>>> 2015*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *A Selection Committee will be established* in order to ensure
>>>>>> broad and inclusive participation of stakeholders in the
>>>>>> high-level meeting. Applications to the Selection Committee will
>>>>>> be accepted from *30 October to 8 November 2015*. To learn more
>>>>>> about the Selection Committee, please see the Terms of Reference
>>>>>> by clicking on this link
>>>>>> <http://csonet.org/content/documents/WSIS+10_ToR_Steering_Committee.pdf>.
>>>>>> *To apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee,
>>>>>> please complete the form available **here*
>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pzCRKLri16XUMNYNA9QECFnhCrO9Ub7ex0Ho2vdYp2k/viewform>*.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Background*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the
>>>>>> World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common
>>>>>> desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and
>>>>>> development-oriented Information Society," and ushered in an era
>>>>>> of harnessing the power of information and communication
>>>>>> technology to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium
>>>>>> Development Goals (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action
>>>>>> established targets and the eleven action lines, which guide
>>>>>> development in specific areas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon
>>>>>> the achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis
>>>>>> Agenda addressing additional issues, such as financing and
>>>>>> internet governance. Paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed
>>>>>> by the General Assembly in resolution 60/252, requested the
>>>>>> General Assembly to undertake the overall review of the
>>>>>> implementation of the outcomes of WSIS in 2015.  In response, the
>>>>>> General Assembly in resolution 68/302, decided that the overall
>>>>>> review will be concluded by a two-day high-level meeting of the
>>>>>> General Assembly, to be preceded by an intergovernmental process
>>>>>> that also takes into account inputs from all relevant
>>>>>> stakeholders of WSIS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> /Carolina Rossini /
>>>>>> /Vice President, International Policy and Strategy
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> *Public Knowledge*
>>>>>> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> /Carolina Rossini /
>>>>>> /Vice President, International Policy/
>>>>>> *Public Knowledge*
>>>>>> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>> <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:
>>>     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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151031/3c3d7a13/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 901 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151031/3c3d7a13/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Oct 31 08:58:49 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:28:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <8587F3C3-613F-4596-B959-25BB895DB88E@gp-digital.org>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net> <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba> <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net> <56347496.9040002@itforchange.net> <00172661A97441C685D1A0F64770BB66@Toshiba> <8587F3C3-613F-4596-B959-25BB895DB88E@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <5634BB09.1090903@itforchange.net>



On Saturday 31 October 2015 04:12 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> Hi Ian, Parminder,
>
> Thanks for putting this on our agenda. Not against taking a stand on
> this. We have precedent with the IGF MAG, so could point to that.
> Although not ideal, UN DESA did take on 9/10 CSCG recommendations in
> the last MAG intake. And seeing as the MAG selection process is still
> something that needs improvement, we could leverage this effort (if
> successful) in the next round of MAG nominations.
>
> Going beyond the principle, I'd also be interested to hear from CS who
> were sitting on the selection committee for the July WSIS event (I
> think the UN used the same selection mechanism). Did that work at all?

Two responses Lea

I was on the selection committee, and I wrote to the group about the
problems that I am mentioning now. I think it did not work. The business
and tech community reps that get themselves on the selection committee
are the ones who know the IG CS scene very well, and know those whose
views are not exactly what for instance big business will relish and
they tend to vote accordingly, certainly very conservatively is not will
actual mal-intent, which pushes away some important sections of the
civil society.

> Would the final selection of CS reps at the July event been different
> had CS had control over the process?

I would judge the rightness or wrongness of such a structural element of
civil society's independence separately from actual outcomes of any
given process. To provide an analogy, I would not like to compare
democracy with dictatorship on basis of whether a dictatorship has shown
some good economic etc results. If we do not defend our processes now
they would become institutionalised, and precedents will be cited. We
must act now.

parminder

>
> While we're on the topic, Ian, does the CSCG actively monitor UN calls
> for CS representation in relevant spaces? For instance, did the CSCG
> ever discuss the call for nominations for the Adis Ababa Technology
> Facilitation Mechanism Advisory Group? The call has now passed (last
> weekend I think), and IMO it's a real shame that we didn't have a
> broader CS discussion about this. The TFM is passing under people's
> radar, but could end up being influential in the broader IG ecosystem. 
>
> Best wishes,
> Lea
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Oct 2015, at 08:08, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>
>> Is there general agreement we should write something pointing this
>> out and asking for a process where CS chooses its own reps?
>>  
>> Perhaps we could ask for UNDESA to forward CS names submitted to us
>> and we will advise our choices?
>>  
>> Interested in other opinions on this.... we would have to move quickly...
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 6:58 PM
>> *To:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com> ;
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ;
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination:
>> Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on
>> WSIS+10
>>  
>> This is what para 3 of part I of the section on roadmap of the
>> NetMundial outcome document says:
>>
>> "Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet
>> governance processes should be selected through open , democratic,
>> and transparent processes. Different /*stakeholder groups should self
>> - manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well
>> defined and accountable mechanism*/s." (Emphasis added)
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>>  
>>>> While I agree with your analysis,
>>>
>>> Ian, I am not sure you are seeing it the way I am. This is not about
>>> 4-5 of us getting a few minutes from the podium. This is about civil
>>> society representation will be chosen in the IG space. And if you
>>> really feel it the way i do, why would you not agree to write as
>>> such to those in charge of the process.
>>>
>>>> I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be
>>>> changed in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest
>>>> we make.
>>>
>>> As I said, it does not matter if it changes. There is a larger
>>> structural point here. On the other hand, I am about 90 percent sure
>>> that if all groups involved in CSCG writes that this is not right,
>>> and please let us do our own selection they would agree. Civil
>>> society seems to have forgotten to leverage its legitimacy, and we
>>> seem to cave in to just about everything, a being beyond us to
>>> influence. This is not how it should be at all,
>>>
>>>> So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved,
>>>> and from that position make a strong statement that the process is
>>>> flawed and problematic from our point of view.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that the chosen speakers will speak from the podium
>>> that this process is flawed, and in this way? Please be clear. But
>>> if we are ready to have our speakers speak about it at the high
>>> level meeting, why would we not want to write about it to the
>>> co-facilitators and the concerned UN bureaucracy? Isnt that much
>>> simpler, and at least have the potential of meaningful impact.
>>>
>>>> I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are
>>>> able to correct some excesses from our point of view, but certainly
>>>> not all.
>>>
>>> Again, did not understand. What excesses, and how are they corrected?
>>>>  
>>>> However that’s just a personal point of view.  We have just opened
>>>> a discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
>>>>  
>>>> One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can
>>>> according to this process are:
>>>
>>> These criteria are for those individuals who want to apply to be on
>>> the multistakeholder selection committee. My proposal is to
>>> disassociate CS selection from this multistakeholder selection
>>> process, and ask for CSCG to do it (I find it highly likely that
>>> they'd agree). So, the issue of the creteria you mention simply does
>>> not apply to the proposal I am making and seeking your and other
>>> people's views on.
>>>
>>>> Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the
>>>> Economic and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the World
>>>> Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis
>>>> (2005) • Organizations accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011
>>>> to 2015 • Organizations with observer status with the United
>>>> Nations Conference on Trade and Development • Attendees of the
>>>> UNESCO WSIS+10 - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS - Connecting
>>>> the Dots Conference • Organizations accredited to the Financing for
>>>> Development (FFD) process • Organizations accredited to the United
>>>> Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 • Organizations already
>>>> accredited to the WSIS+10 process (July and October meetings)
>>>>  
>>>> So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our
>>>> nominations as representatives of civil society organisations who
>>>> do fit one at least of the above criteria.
>>>
>>> I am not asking for the CSCG to get involved with this
>>> multistakeholder selection process. On the contrary, I am asking for
>>> us to disassociate from it.
>>>
>>>>  
>>>> Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is
>>>> roughly that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it
>>>> may not be easy to find people able to represent us. I believe that
>>>> if we are involved we should try to fill both civil society slots
>>>> on the selection panel. But that will have to be as two separate
>>>> nominations (backed by CSCG) from different CS groups.
>>>
>>> Again, you are speaking of CSCG getting involved with the current
>>> process, which is fundamentally different from my proposal to ask
>>> for CS nominations to be taken off the multistakeholder process, and
>>> be taken over by CSCG itself. Same about the rest of your email below.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian, lets look at it in two parts. Do the involved CS groups agree
>>> that other stakeholders  - big business, gov, ICANN/ ISOC - should
>>> not be involved in selection of its reps? Yes or no. If yes, then
>>> let us that put down in a letter. I am happy to fight the case, but
>>> if we have such a position and want to fight the case. We cannot
>>> keep citing expediency for just everything. But if we are ok with
>>> such a process, that is a different matter, and let different groups
>>> and individuals give their views... Their has to be some limit to -
>>> we agree it is wrong, but....
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>>  
>>>> And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we
>>>> have to do so this week.
>>>>  
>>>> And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the
>>>> Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will
>>>> not be standing again, as various factors are making it difficult
>>>> for me to maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I
>>>> think it is time for one of our very talented (and younger) members
>>>> to take over.  CSCG is currently drafting an EOI to seek a new
>>>> independent Chair, with the aim of opening that process before IGF
>>>> so that people get a chance to discuss it while many are present in
>>>> Brazil. So the replacement process hopefully will complete by the
>>>> end of this year.
>>>>  
>>>> So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone
>>>> who has an interest in working with CSCG as part of this particular
>>>> process; I don’t necessarily want to be involved if we have good
>>>> reps able to consult with CSCG members. If anyone is interested in
>>>> this and wants to contact me privately to assist in this way,  I
>>>> would be happy to discuss further and approach CSCG as regards
>>>> their involvement.
>>>>  
>>>> Thanks for opening up a discussion on this.
>>>>  
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
>>>> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ;
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
>>>> Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>>  
>>>> Please see the below announcement.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system
>>>> of civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for
>>>> more substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder
>>>> committees, meaning that big business and technical community gets
>>>> a veto over civil society rep selection. (Do remember here that
>>>> 'technical community' here is not that odd free and open software
>>>> group volunteering their time in supporting government schools or
>>>> the such. This term is accepted in the IG world now to denote those
>>>> who work for and represent organisations engaged with technical
>>>> governance of the Internet, and thus represent a governance status
>>>> quo group. The semantic confusion about the term, as being people
>>>> with technical capacities, is deliberate in order to utilise a
>>>> certain legitimacy for what is a power based governance system.)
>>>>
>>>> The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.
>>>>
>>>> This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks
>>>> that I work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely
>>>> protective of its independence, which includes the right to choose
>>>> its own nominees (for instance, any efforts at national govs
>>>> 'clearing' civil society reps from their countries has been
>>>> strongly resisted at the UN and other global governance levels).  I
>>>> think we need to write back to those responsible for this process
>>>> that , thanks but no thanks, you tell us how many CS sepakers you
>>>> want and we have a process of selection for CS reps and we will
>>>> deliver the names by the date you want.
>>>>
>>>> May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to
>>>> WSIS process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at
>>>> the earliest. Before these mentioned deadlines pass.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....
>>>>
>>>> Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the
>>>> co-facilitators against such a process of big business sitting over
>>>> decisions on CS reps. It seems to have had no effect.
>>>>
>>>> A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the
>>>> IGF MAG, led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer,
>>>> to institute a method of selections of non gov MAG members by a
>>>> committee of older non gov MAG members. I was able to attend MAG
>>>> meetings in those days as a Special Advisor to the chair. I opposed
>>>> such a process of CS nominee selection by a committee that included
>>>> big business and technical community  (read the ICANN/ ISOC
>>>> system). I was able to get the support of a few CS MAG members in
>>>> the room, and I distinctly remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in
>>>> this regard, and perhaps a person or two more whose names may have
>>>> dropped from my memory (my apologies).... And because of the CS
>>>> opposition this problematic move had to be abandoned.  Now it seems
>>>> to be coming back from another door, and we need to stand up
>>>> against it once again.
>>>>
>>>> Again, we have very little turnaround time here.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>> On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: *NGO News* <ngonews at un.org <mailto:ngonews at un.org>>
>>>>> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
>>>>> Subject: [NGO News:] Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at
>>>>> the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>>> To: crossini at publicknowledge.org <mailto:crossini at publicknowledge.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Deadlines:            *
>>>>>
>>>>> *8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee*
>>>>>
>>>>> *12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles*
>>>>>
>>>>> *The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of
>>>>> the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the
>>>>> Information Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the
>>>>> UN Headquarters in New York.*
>>>>>
>>>>> This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth
>>>>> discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS
>>>>> outcomes, including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as
>>>>> areas for future actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> *To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the
>>>>> form available here
>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ffRSw8C5UGYRKrzdpCiWnyc2EMVTbmZ1SVGNnhs0FcQ/viewform>*.
>>>>> Applications will be accepted from *30 October to* *12 November 2015*.
>>>>>
>>>>> *A Selection Committee will be established* in order to ensure
>>>>> broad and inclusive participation of stakeholders in the
>>>>> high-level meeting. Applications to the Selection Committee will
>>>>> be accepted from *30 October to 8 November 2015*. To learn more
>>>>> about the Selection Committee, please see the Terms of Reference
>>>>> by clicking on this link
>>>>> <http://csonet.org/content/documents/WSIS+10_ToR_Steering_Committee.pdf>.
>>>>> *To apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee,
>>>>> please complete the form available **here*
>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pzCRKLri16XUMNYNA9QECFnhCrO9Ub7ex0Ho2vdYp2k/viewform>*.*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Background*
>>>>>
>>>>> In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the
>>>>> World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common
>>>>> desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and
>>>>> development-oriented Information Society," and ushered in an era
>>>>> of harnessing the power of information and communication
>>>>> technology to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium
>>>>> Development Goals (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action
>>>>> established targets and the eleven action lines, which guide
>>>>> development in specific areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon
>>>>> the achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis
>>>>> Agenda addressing additional issues, such as financing and
>>>>> internet governance. Paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed
>>>>> by the General Assembly in resolution 60/252, requested the
>>>>> General Assembly to undertake the overall review of the
>>>>> implementation of the outcomes of WSIS in 2015.  In response, the
>>>>> General Assembly in resolution 68/302, decided that the overall
>>>>> review will be concluded by a two-day high-level meeting of the
>>>>> General Assembly, to be preceded by an intergovernmental process
>>>>> that also takes into account inputs from all relevant stakeholders
>>>>> of WSIS.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>  
>>>>> /Carolina Rossini /
>>>>> /Vice President, International Policy and Strategy
>>>>> /
>>>>> *Public Knowledge*
>>>>> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>>>>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>  
>>>>> /Carolina Rossini /
>>>>> /Vice President, International Policy/
>>>>> *Public Knowledge*
>>>>> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>>>>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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 <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:
>>     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/20151031/920258aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Oct 31 09:49:55 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:49:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <5634B77D.6080308@itforchange.net>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net> <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba> <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net> <56347496.9040002@itforchange.net> <00172661A97441C685D1A0F64770BB66@Toshiba> <8587F3C3-613F-4596-B959-25BB895DB88E@gp-digital.org> <36A23804-6254-4478-BB3A-85950D7370F4@consensus.pro> <5634B77D.6080308@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <F11D64C5-83A0-4F99-B90F-158D4EF6CF7E@consensus.pro>

Dear Parminder,

I hadn’t actually appreciated this though in hindsight it is only logical that I would have. As to your question, as I was not involved in that process I cannot speak to how it worked, though it is all published on the NGLS website I think.

> On 31 Oct 2015, at 13:43, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> Nick
> 
> I am sure that you understand what is it that I am objecting to bec I made it very clear in my email. I am *not* objecting to a novel process that may be devised to set up a selection committee of civil society persons to nominate civil society speakers. (Although unlike what may be true in other areas, in IG area we precisely have such a self organising system within the CS, which is an important point to keep in sight.) What I am objecting to is the presence of business and technical community members (ICANN/ ISOC), meaning non civil society members, in any such selection committee..
> 
> Do you confirm that the climate summit process, that was rewarded, and you say is now the accepted process, involved business members in the selection committee that selected civil society speakers? I dont think so, but I will let to comment on it.
> 
> If not, your arugments are quite beside the point here.
> 
> So lets focus on the issue which is under contention - to repeat, the problem of business persons and tech community (read ICANN/ ISOC) selecting CS reps... It is NOT this civil society nomination process or that, *as long as the selection committee is made of civil society persons*.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 04:40 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>> Dear Lea, Parminder, and others,
>> 
>> FYI, the process below - like that previously for CS - is a standard operatiing process for NY now as it is seen by the 38th floor, and the PGA’s office, as being a real success story in getting interesting voices whom existing selection processes might not have surfaced. The person at NGLS who pioneered this with the climate summit in 2014 was just given an award by the Secretary-General personally for her efforts <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=b21d8b63-9909-4a07-b3c2-5b10050f2743&c=47897580-6ef2-11e5-8573-d4ae5284205e&ch=48688ae0-6ef2-11e5-8694-d4ae5284205e> - she’s actually a committed and really tremendous person who genuinely feels a passion for ensuring CS voices are effective at the UN named Susan Alzner. All of this suggests that the UN will probably resist changing a process that they just awarded because of requests that you all may make.
>> 
>> Nothing wrong with making a point about this, but at the same time I would also put some effort into the selection committee and ensuring selectors put themselves forward that you         believe will make good choices, including perhaps a fulsome consultation with the broader community. Anyone who wants to talk to Susan let me know, I’d be glad to introduce you.
>> 
>> Regards, Nick
>> 
>>> On 31 Oct 2015, at 11:42, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org <mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ian, Parminder,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for putting this on our agenda. Not against taking a stand on this. We have precedent with the IGF MAG, so could point to that. Although not ideal, UN DESA did take on 9/10 CSCG recommendations in the last MAG intake. And seeing as the MAG selection process is still something that needs improvement, we could leverage this effort (if successful) in the next round of MAG nominations.
>>> 
>>> Going beyond the principle, I'd also be interested to hear from CS who were sitting on the selection committee for the July WSIS event (I think the UN used the same selection mechanism). Did that work at all? Would the final selection of CS reps at the July event been different had CS had control over the process?
>>> 
>>> While we're on the topic, Ian, does the CSCG actively monitor UN calls for CS representation in relevant spaces? For instance, did the CSCG ever discuss the call for nominations for the Adis Ababa Technology Facilitation Mechanism Advisory Group? The call has now passed (last weekend I think), and IMO it's a real shame that we didn't have a broader CS discussion about this. The TFM is passing under people's radar, but could end up being influential in the broader IG ecosystem.
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Lea
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On 31 Oct 2015, at 08:08, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Is there general agreement we should write something pointing this out and asking for a process where CS chooses its own reps?
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps we could ask for UNDESA to forward CS names submitted to us and we will advise our choices?
>>>> 
>>>> Interested in other opinions on this.... we would have to move quickly...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 6:58 PM
>>>> To: Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>> 
>>>> This is what para 3 of part I of the section on roadmap of the NetMundial outcome document says:
>>>> 
>>>> "Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open , democratic, and transparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self - manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountable mechanisms." (Emphasis added)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> While I agree with your analysis,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ian, I am not sure you are seeing it the way I am. This is not about 4-5 of us getting a few minutes from the podium. This is about civil society representation will be chosen in the IG space. And if you really feel it the way i do, why would you not agree to write as such to those in charge of the process.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be changed in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest we make.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I said, it does not matter if it changes. There is a larger structural point here. On the other hand, I am about 90 percent sure that if all groups involved in CSCG writes that this is not right, and please let us do our own selection they would agree. Civil society seems to have forgotten to leverage its legitimacy, and we seem to cave in to just about everything, a being beyond us to influence. This is not how it should be at all,
>>>>> 
>>>>>> So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved, and from that position make a strong statement that the process is flawed and problematic from our point of view.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are you saying that the chosen speakers will speak from the podium that this process is flawed, and in this way? Please be clear. But if we are ready to have our speakers speak about it at the high level meeting, why would we not want to write about it to the co-facilitators and the concerned UN bureaucracy? Isnt that much simpler, and at least have the potential of meaningful impact.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are able to correct some excesses from our point of view, but certainly not all.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Again, did not understand. What excesses, and how are they corrected?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However that’s just a personal point of view.  We have just opened a discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can according to this process are:
>>>>> 
>>>>> These criteria are for those individuals who want to apply to be on the multistakeholder selection committee. My proposal is to disassociate CS selection from this multistakeholder selection process, and ask for CSCG to do it (I find it highly likely that they'd agree). So, the issue of the creteria you mention simply does not apply to the proposal I am making and seeking your and other people's views on.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) • Organizations accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011 to 2015 • Organizations with observer status with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development • Attendees of the UNESCO WSIS+10 - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS - Connecting the Dots Conference • Organizations accredited to the Financing for Development (FFD) process • Organizations accredited to the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 • Organizations already accredited to the WSIS+10 process (July and October meetings)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our nominations as representatives of civil society organisations who do fit one at least of the above criteria.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am not asking for the CSCG to get involved with this multistakeholder selection process. On the contrary, I am asking for us to disassociate from it.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is roughly that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it may not be easy to find people able to represent us. I believe that if we are involved we should try to fill both civil society slots on the selection panel. But that will have to be as two separate nominations (backed by CSCG) from different CS groups.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Again, you are speaking of CSCG getting involved with the current process, which is fundamentally different from my proposal to ask for CS nominations to be taken off the multistakeholder process, and be taken over by CSCG itself. Same about the rest of your email below.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ian, lets look at it in two parts. Do the involved CS groups agree that other stakeholders  - big business, gov, ICANN/ ISOC - should not be involved in selection of its reps? Yes or no. If yes, then let us that put down in a letter. I am happy to fight the case, but if we have such a position and want to fight the case. We cannot keep citing expediency for just everything. But if we are ok with such a process, that is a different matter, and let different groups and individuals give their views... Their has to be some limit to - we agree it is wrong, but....
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we have to do so this week.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will not be standing again, as various factors are making it difficult for me to maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I think it is time for one of our very talented (and younger) members to take over.  CSCG is currently drafting an EOI to seek a new independent Chair, with the aim of opening that process before IGF so that people get a chance to discuss it while many are present in Brazil. So the replacement process hopefully will complete by the end of this year.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone who has an interest in working with CSCG as part of this particular process; I don’t necessarily want to be involved if we have good reps able to consult with CSCG members. If anyone is interested in this and wants to contact me privately to assist in this way,  I would be happy to discuss further and approach CSCG as regards their involvement.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for opening up a discussion on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
>>>>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please see the below announcement.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system of civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for more substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder committees, meaning that big business and technical community gets a veto over civil society rep selection. (Do remember here that 'technical community' here is not that odd free and open software group volunteering their time in supporting government schools or the such. This term is accepted in the IG world now to denote those who work for and represent organisations engaged with technical governance of the Internet, and thus represent a governance status quo group. The semantic confusion about the term, as being people with technical capacities, is deliberate in order to utilise a certain legitimacy for what is a power based governance system.)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks that I work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely protective of its independence, which includes the right to choose its own nominees (for instance, any efforts at national govs 'clearing' civil society reps from their countries has been strongly resisted at the UN and other global governance levels).  I think we need to write back to those responsible for this process that , thanks but no thanks, you tell us how many CS sepakers you want and we have a process of selection for CS reps and we will deliver the names by the date you want.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to WSIS process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at the earliest. Before these mentioned deadlines pass.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the co-facilitators against such a process of big business sitting over decisions on CS reps. It seems to have had no effect.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the IGF MAG, led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer, to institute a method of selections of non gov MAG members by a committee of older non gov MAG members. I was able to attend MAG meetings in those days as a Special Advisor to the chair. I opposed such a process of CS nominee selection by a committee that included big business and technical community  (read the ICANN/ ISOC system). I was able to get the support of a few CS MAG members in the room, and I distinctly remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in this regard, and perhaps a person or two more whose names may have dropped from my memory (my apologies).... And because of the CS opposition this problematic move had to be abandoned.  Now it seems to be coming back from another door, and we need to stand up against it once again.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Again, we have very little turnaround time here.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>> From: NGO News <ngonews at un.org <mailto:ngonews at un.org>>
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: [NGO News:] <news:]> Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>>>>>>> To: crossini at publicknowledge.org <mailto:crossini at publicknowledge.org>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Deadlines:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the UN Headquarters in New York.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as areas for future actions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the form available here <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ffRSw8C5UGYRKrzdpCiWnyc2EMVTbmZ1SVGNnhs0FcQ/viewform>. Applications will be accepted from 30 October to 12 November 2015.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A Selection Committee will be established in order to ensure broad and inclusive participation of stakeholders in the high-level meeting. Applications to the Selection Committee will be accepted from 30 October to 8 November 2015. To learn more about the Selection Committee, please see the Terms of Reference by clicking on this link <http://csonet.org/content/documents/WSIS+10_ToR_Steering_Committee.pdf>. To apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee, please complete the form available here <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pzCRKLri16XUMNYNA9QECFnhCrO9Ub7ex0Ho2vdYp2k/viewform>.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Background
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society," and ushered in an era of harnessing the power of information and communication technology to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action established targets and the eleven action lines, which guide development in specific areas.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon the achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis Agenda addressing additional issues, such as financing and internet governance. Paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed by the General Assembly in resolution 60/252, requested the General Assembly to undertake the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of WSIS in 2015.  In response, the General Assembly in resolution 68/302, decided that the overall review will be concluded by a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly, to be preceded by an intergovernmental process that also takes into account inputs from all relevant stakeholders of WSIS.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Carolina Rossini
>>>>>>> Vice President, International Policy and Strategy
>>>>>>> Public Knowledge
>>>>>>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>
>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 |  <>skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Carolina Rossini
>>>>>>> Vice President, International Policy
>>>>>>> Public Knowledge
>>>>>>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>
>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 |  <>skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      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 <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 <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 <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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:
>>>>     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 <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 <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151031/0206e443/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/20151031/0206e443/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Sat Oct 31 10:10:28 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:10:28 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
 Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <5634BB09.1090903@itforchange.net>
References: <CAK-FJAc__WvJ0z-QxqozVbbMV65+J_va543-y0+R8BBP=fjYEg@mail.gmail.com> <5634446D.9060505@itforchange.net> <E4640F478CC849B8A547991B3DB585D2@Toshiba> <56347293.7090103@itforchange.net> <56347496.9040002@itforchange.net> <00172661A97441C685D1A0F64770BB66@Toshiba> <8587F3C3-613F-4596-B959-25BB895DB88E@gp-digital.org> <5634BB09.1090903@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <B83D70E0-F57B-4E6D-8832-55DEA2FEDD3C@consensus.pro>

For what it is worth, I was also on the selection committee and it seemed to me people tried to pick good people irrespective of anything else whilst acknowledging that some of those who would speak would be controversial - but that this shouldn’t be a bar to being chosen particularly if they would reflect a view that was a part of the overall WSIS debates already.

There was, I think, an overall interest in hearing from newer voices and the mandate required gender, regional, national, etc balance which is good, but also means that some who would otherwise be great won’t get through because there are many voices from a given region or nationality, but this is not a new or unusual problem.

To me the biggest problem was the extreme time constraints that were a product, in part, of the relatively late appointment of the co-facilitators - this limited the time for the word to get out about nominations and also meant that the choices got made so near the meeting that many could not make their visa etc arrangements in time to attend.

My 0.02

> On 31 Oct 2015, at 13:58, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> Going beyond the principle, I'd also be interested to hear from CS who were sitting on the selection committee for the July WSIS event (I think the UN used the same selection mechanism). Did that work at all?
> 
> Two responses Lea
> 
> I was on the selection committee, and I wrote to the group about the problems that I am mentioning now. I think it did not work. The business and tech community reps that get themselves on the selection committee are the ones who know the IG CS scene very well, and know those whose views are not exactly what for instance big business will relish and they tend to vote accordingly, certainly very conservatively is not will actual mal-intent, which pushes away some important sections of the civil society.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151031/c16a2ee3/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/20151031/c16a2ee3/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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Sat Oct 31 13:31:51 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 13:31:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CSCG nominations for civil society
 speakers at IGF
In-Reply-To: <c43882cc-fb96-4a8d-8db4-41e7af1bcd77@varonferraz.com>
References: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>
	<CAJTVAjzvb+VQWZOd-orXpzxczv8B==fNhUtFCCEq9HKdSya9Cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<c43882cc-fb96-4a8d-8db4-41e7af1bcd77@varonferraz.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdf+UmJSLN_kzBOBeLnw7UemMeOdFvpyAGOaQN9gUAL9A@mail.gmail.com>

Good that you sent an updated bio Jo, I was about to do that when I saw
Ian's email.

I am very happy about the nominations, but I would invert the order of
possible. Having a Brazilian at the end, as we had Grace and Burcu as CS
for closing ceremony, is VERY important politically.

Not just for CS, but actually more as a opportunity to have the closing
speech also refer to national issues and ask specific commitments from the
Brazilian policy makers there. As Joana is incredible aware, since she is
deeply involved in the discussions, folks are trying to puncture Marco
Civil and cut back on other digital rights in Brazil... We - the digital
rights community - lost a lot of attention due to all the political
corruption that has take over all the media attention.

We need to have Joana - as a Brasilian - putting the "country" against the
wall in front of everybody. And I feel the closing ceremony is better for
that purpose.

I am saying all this without having spoken with Joana. So, I am not sure if
she is available.

But I wanted to make sure to leave my opinion on this issue.

C

On Friday, October 30, 2015, <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Ian and everyone!
>
> I cannot express how honored I'm for this nomination. I hope I can respond
> to the task with the bright it entails.
>
> As soon as nomination is confirmed I will share a pad for people to bring
> inputs. Will already be dreaming with some insights.
>
> Just a correction in my institutional presentation as I'm not CTS for more
> then 1 and half year now :):
>
> I'm founder director and creative chaos catalyst of Coding Rights, a women
> lead think-and-do tank with the mission to bring hackers, geeks, artists,
> researchers and activists together to protect, promote and mainstream
> digital rights and empower women on ICTs. More on @codingrights or
> codingrights.org (still temporary work in progress)
>
> Thank you once again and have safe travels to João Pessoa. We will be
> waiting for you all to cheer with caipirinhas or fresh coconut water.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Joana
> On 30 Oct 2015 17:36, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lea at gp-digital.org');>> wrote:
>
> Congratulations to both, proud to be represented by these women.
>
> Many thanks to the CSCG for their work - excellent choices.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lea
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ian.peter at ianpeter.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Below are the two nominations from Civil Society Coordination Group for
>> speakers for this years IGF opening and closing ceremonies. They were
>> chosen from a field of 20 names submitted from various civil society
>> coalitions, and have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that
>> any of the 20 names submitted could have represented us admirably, and that
>> it was a tough decision for the CSCG members to come up with 2 names.
>>
>> Joana Varon (Brazil) – opening ceremony – joana at varonferraz.com
>>
>> Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) – closing ceremony – nadine at apcwomen.org
>>
>>
>> For those who don’t know them,
>>
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project coordinator at the Centre
>> for Technology and Society from Fundação Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro
>>
>> Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese feminist activist and grasssroots worker who
>> leads Association for Progressive Communication (APC)'s sexual
>> rights work.
>>
>>
>> We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to represent
>> civil society. They have both been informed of their nominations.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination Group)
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>

-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151031/ee3e3e6b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nigidaad at gmail.com  Sat Oct 31 13:50:26 2015
From: nigidaad at gmail.com (Nighat Dad)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 22:50:26 +0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] CSCG nominations for civil society
 speakers at IGF
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdf+UmJSLN_kzBOBeLnw7UemMeOdFvpyAGOaQN9gUAL9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <329E4D25FA9741FBA266911DB82F76DD@Toshiba>
	<CAJTVAjzvb+VQWZOd-orXpzxczv8B==fNhUtFCCEq9HKdSya9Cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<c43882cc-fb96-4a8d-8db4-41e7af1bcd77@varonferraz.com>
	<CAK-FJAdf+UmJSLN_kzBOBeLnw7UemMeOdFvpyAGOaQN9gUAL9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEjRXG8BOd55v3Oqxfc0mD8Mzpa7JreJbWmhfU7XCHTZd6_uVQ@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations to both of my friends. I am sure you will be wonderful as
always.

Best,
Nighat Dad

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good that you sent an updated bio Jo, I was about to do that when I saw
> Ian's email.
>
> I am very happy about the nominations, but I would invert the order of
> possible. Having a Brazilian at the end, as we had Grace and Burcu as CS
> for closing ceremony, is VERY important politically.
>
> Not just for CS, but actually more as a opportunity to have the closing
> speech also refer to national issues and ask specific commitments from the
> Brazilian policy makers there. As Joana is incredible aware, since she is
> deeply involved in the discussions, folks are trying to puncture Marco
> Civil and cut back on other digital rights in Brazil... We - the digital
> rights community - lost a lot of attention due to all the political
> corruption that has take over all the media attention.
>
> We need to have Joana - as a Brasilian - putting the "country" against the
> wall in front of everybody. And I feel the closing ceremony is better for
> that purpose.
>
> I am saying all this without having spoken with Joana. So, I am not sure
> if she is available.
>
> But I wanted to make sure to leave my opinion on this issue.
>
> C
>
>
> On Friday, October 30, 2015, <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Ian and everyone!
>>
>> I cannot express how honored I'm for this nomination. I hope I can
>> respond to the task with the bright it entails.
>>
>> As soon as nomination is confirmed I will share a pad for people to bring
>> inputs. Will already be dreaming with some insights.
>>
>> Just a correction in my institutional presentation as I'm not CTS for
>> more then 1 and half year now :):
>>
>> I'm founder director and creative chaos catalyst of Coding Rights, a
>> women lead think-and-do tank with the mission to bring hackers, geeks,
>> artists, researchers and activists together to protect, promote and
>> mainstream digital rights and empower women on ICTs. More on @codingrights
>> or codingrights.org (still temporary work in progress)
>>
>> Thank you once again and have safe travels to João Pessoa. We will be
>> waiting for you all to cheer with caipirinhas or fresh coconut water.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Joana
>> On 30 Oct 2015 17:36, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>>
>> Congratulations to both, proud to be represented by these women.
>>
>> Many thanks to the CSCG for their work - excellent choices.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Lea
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Below are the two nominations from Civil Society Coordination Group for
>>> speakers for this years IGF opening and closing ceremonies. They were
>>> chosen from a field of 20 names submitted from various civil society
>>> coalitions, and have been forwarded to the IGF Secretariat. I must say that
>>> any of the 20 names submitted could have represented us admirably, and that
>>> it was a tough decision for the CSCG members to come up with 2 names.
>>>
>>> Joana Varon (Brazil) – opening ceremony – joana at varonferraz.com
>>>
>>> Nadine Moawad (Lebanon) – closing ceremony – nadine at apcwomen.org
>>>
>>>
>>> For those who don’t know them,
>>>
>>>
>>> Joana Varon Ferraz is a researcher and project coordinator at the Centre
>>> for Technology and Society from Fundação Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro
>>>
>>> Nadine Moawad is a Lebanese feminist activist and grasssroots worker who
>>> leads Association for Progressive Communication (APC)'s sexual
>>> rights work.
>>>
>>>
>>> We commend them both as informed excellent communicators to represent
>>> civil society. They have both been informed of their nominations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter (Independent Chair, Civil Society Coordination Group)
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151031/fd8d191d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr  Sat Oct 31 16:17:35 2015
From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene Tungali)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 22:17:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSCG nominations for civil society speakers at IGF
Message-ID: <smgc3yqqfve9m9iko2h295p7.1446322655541@email.android.com>

There you go. Two women to represent us!
The names were unfamiliar to me, it is good to know them now.
Congratulations! 

-----
Arsene Tungali,
Executive Director, Rudi International.
Founder & Director, Mabingwa Forum.

Mandela Washington Fellow. ICANN Fellow. ISOC IGF Ambassador. Blogger. Child Online Protection. Communications Specialist.

Democratic Republic of Congo.
Sent from Huawei Mobile (excuse typos)

Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To 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/20151031/324021dc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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