From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed Sep 30 19:45:56 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:45:56 -0700
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Update on IGF Best Bits meeting and registration
 now open
In-Reply-To: <560B176C.1020607@eff.org>
References: <560B176C.1020607@eff.org>
Message-ID: <560C7434.9090104@eff.org>

Please see information below about this year's Best Bits civil society
IGF pre-meeting.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Update on IGF Best Bits meeting and registration now open
Date: 	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:57:48 -0700
From: 	Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
To: 	bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>



Confirming the previous "save the date", we are happy to confirm that
there will be a Best Bits meeting in João Pessoa
<http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2015> on the day prior to day 0 of
the IGF (November 8th).  For those arriving early enough, we will also
have a no host dinner on the 7th (dinner venue TBC).  If you plan to
attend the meeting, please register now, and we will be in touch with
further details as plans progress.  All self-identified members of civil
society are welcome.

The venue is the Xênius Hotel <http://www.xeniushotel.com.br/>, which is
mid-way along the João Pessoa beach strip, and therefore probably about
equally in/convenient to most of those who will be attending the IGF. 
If you do not already have a hotel and if you do not expect luxury, a
limited group booking of rooms at USD$36 per night at this hotel is
available.  Please email me privately to indicate if you require this
after registering (note that no travel or accommodation support is
currently available).

A tentative agenda, which remains open for change, has been suggested
and can be found at the event website
<http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2015>.  For those sessions that
have already been proposed, volunteers are welcome to help contribute in
various capacities including moderation, speaking, notetaking and
logistical help.  You can volunteer, propose edits to session
descriptions, or propose new sessions, at this etherpad
<http://pad.bestbits.net/igf2015>.

We look forward to your input in the preparation of the meeting, and to
seeing many of you in João Pessoa.

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

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

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

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150930/fc7e9b49/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150930/fc7e9b49/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 anja at internetdemocracy.in  Tue Sep  1 14:22:37 2015
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:52:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder,

I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who
first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to which
you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.

Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know, the
modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process. Also,
details on the way in which the informal consultations with other
stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even eight
months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when the Review
process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what extent inputs from
stakeholders other than governments would be taken into account. This
meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that situation, trying to amplify
voices from our region to make sure that concerns from this region actually
find resonance in New York - something that, seeing how far removed we are
from there, isn't guaranteed at all.

The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are organisations
that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing to put part of
their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and minds, or of all of
these up to make this event happen. No funding was secured specifically for
this meeting (though I tried). What this meant is that the funding pool was
limited, and difficult decisions indeed did have to be made. What we aimed
for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's sub-regions as well
as a group that could address a mix of issues from a range of perspectives.
A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two years
was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.

As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people who
would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we were not
able to offer funding. Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their
attendance. In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by
the limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to
allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full modalities
of how this will work is something that we are still working out: as this
is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring that remote participation is
substantive is not a given. We are doing our very best to try and pull off
successfully what I think is a first in our region for a meeting of this
kind.

Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is of
course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day one.
Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that they, as
well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources to attend
this event and contribute to its success.

On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are now
intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well, and
that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum initiative on
this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to discussing the
Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to locate that information
there. Do please feel free to pass on the message about this event to them
though. If any representative of APRCEM would be interested in attending,
either in person or remotely, they are very welcome to do so, as are you.

Hope this clarifies.

Regards,
Anja




On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Dear organisers of the
>
> *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review, *With your permission
> I have some questions to ask you. I know this is a treacherous territory,
> given an extra ordinary (and completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being
> asked questions by some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in
> pursuance of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even
> for me to get into this thing....
>
> This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian Regional'
> consultation, on what is a global governance process, and so some questions
> arise in my mind:
>
> (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>
> (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations sent,
> and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my view, would be
> a consultation)
>
> (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and by whom,
> and who decided it..
>
> Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
>
> I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that no
> member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for Change is among
> very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been engaged with the WSIS
> process from the start, and very thoroughly engaged. Further, there is in
> fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO Engagement Mechanism
> <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which describes itself as
>
> "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
> cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all sub-regions
> of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental processes in regional and
> global level. The platform is initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and
> has been set up under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN
> agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other development
> related issues/processes. "
>
> In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency which
> works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a member) which has
> begun to work closely with the Just Net Coalition (many JNC members also
> being its members) and the Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows
> its interest in Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this
> network, or the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called
> "Asia Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group would
> be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and so my
> questions..
>
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the Association for
> Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners Digital and ICT Watch are
> together organising an *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review*
> from 3 to 5 September in Pattaya, Thailand.
>
>
> The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring together
> experts from different backgrounds and from around the Asian region who are
> concerned about issues concerning ICTs, sustainable development, human
> rights and Internet governance, to ask:
> *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely address in the
> process of the review? *
>
>
> The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on the
> non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators of the review
> process in late August (inputs into that paper can be made by all
> stakeholders and are due on 31 July). The group will take stock of the
> extent to which priorities for the Asian region have been reflected in the
> non-paper, and will work together on formulating a joint comment on the
> non-paper (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and
> will be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). The
> group will also look forward to consider which further inputs could be made
> or actions could be taken strategically to ensure that priorities from the
> Asian region are fully taken onto board in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome
> documents. If there are other processes the group believes this work
> could usefully feed into, these might be taken into consideration as well.
>
>
> *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting that is
> geared towards producing a joint submission to the next input round on the
> Review outcome document. *Participants will be drawn from all
> non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a wide and rich variety of
> backgrounds, both in terms of professional expertise and geographical
> location. What unites all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and
> open Internet and to the use of technology to benefit the development and
> human rights of all in our region.
>
>
> *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will be
> available. *For more information on remote participation and the event in
> general, please see the event website <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or
> follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.
>
>
> We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me know if
> you have any comments or questions.
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Anja
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150901/4d9db911/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Sep  2 02:41:41 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 12:11:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>	<55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55E69A25.3000804@itforchange.net>



On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who
> first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to
> which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.

Hi Anja

I am unable to see in your email  answers to the questions that I asked.

40 people gathering for an international meeting for 3 days involves a
huge sum. I am asking, who is paying for it? I have no problem about
groups and networks holding their meetings as they please - although
funding transparency is a basic requirement for all civil society
activity. The real issue here is that you are speaking about a "Regional
Asia Consultation" for a UN process - a point I emphasized in my email
but which finds no reference in your response... Any such meeting must
be fully transparent in its funding, and the manner of making
organisational decisions, including giving invitation and participation
funding.... Why do you not just share that information upfront? Why are
you keeping it back?

(When Just Net Coalition held a meeting last year - even though it was
clearly declared to be a /partisan meeting/ for evolving a new civil
society network around certain key advocacy issues, with no claims at
all to be representative of all views etc- as your meeting is - much
less a 'consultation' with the self-assumed name of 'Asia Regional
Consultation' - we shared every bit of information about the meeting,
including full details of financial contributions. Why are you
hesitating? Is there nothing like civil society/ NGO governance,
transparency and accountability? )

I look forward to the information that I have requested. I am asking for
it not because I need it, but because it is in public interest.

 Thanks, parminder

>
> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know,
> the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process.
> Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with
> other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even
> eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when
> the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what
> extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken
> into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that
> situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that
> concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York -
> something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't
> guaranteed at all.
>
> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are
> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing
> to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and
> minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen. No funding was
> secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried). What this
> meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult decisions
> indeed did have to be made. What we aimed for was to have a balanced
> representation across Asia's sub-regions as well as a group that could
> address a mix of issues from a range of perspectives. A direct
> engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two years was
> definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.
>
> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people
> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we
> were not able to offer funding. Luckily, some of those are able to
> self-fund their attendance. In addition, we tried to alleviate the
> restrictions imposed by the limited funding by deciding to provide
> remote participation, so as to allow all those interested in
> participating to do so. The full modalities of how this will work is
> something that we are still working out: as this is intended to be a
> working meeting, ensuring that remote participation is substantive is
> not a given. We are doing our very best to try and pull off
> successfully what I think is a first in our region for a meeting of
> this kind.
>
> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is
> of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day
> one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that
> they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources
> to attend this event and contribute to its success.
>
> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are
> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as
> well, and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum
> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to
> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the
> message about this event to them though. If any representative of
> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely,
> they are very welcome to do so, as are you.
>
> Hope this clarifies.
>
> Regards,
> Anja
>
>
>
>
> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10
>     Review,
>
>     *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know
>     this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and
>     completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by
>     some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance
>     of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for
>     me to get into this thing....
>
>     This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian
>     Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process,
>     and so some questions arise in my mind:
>
>     (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>
>     (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations
>     sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my
>     view, would be a consultation)
>
>     (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
>     by whom, and who decided it..
>
>     Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
>
>     I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that
>     no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for
>     Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been
>     engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly
>     engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO
>     Engagement Mechanism <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which
>     describes itself as
>
>         "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
>         cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all
>         sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental
>         processes in regional and global level. The platform is
>         initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up
>         under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN
>         agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other
>         development related issues/processes. "
>
>     In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency
>     which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a
>     member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net
>     Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the
>     Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in
>     Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or
>     the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia
>     Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group
>     would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and
>     so my questions..
>
>
>     parminder
>
>
>     On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the
>>     Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners
>>     Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional
>>     Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in
>>     Pattaya, Thailand.
>>
>>
>>     The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring
>>     together experts from different backgrounds and from around the
>>     Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs,
>>     sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to
>>     ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely
>>     address in the process of the review?
>>     *
>>
>>
>>     The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on
>>     the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators
>>     of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can
>>     be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group
>>     will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian
>>     region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work
>>     together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper
>>     (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will
>>     be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft).
>>     The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs
>>     could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure
>>     that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board
>>     in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other
>>     processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into,
>>     these might be taken into consideration as well.
>>
>>
>>     *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting
>>     that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next
>>     input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be
>>     drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a
>>     wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of
>>     professional expertise and geographical location. What unites
>>     all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet
>>     and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human
>>     rights of all in our region.
>>
>>
>>     *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will
>>     be available. *For more information on remote participation and
>>     the event in general, please see the event website
>>     <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.
>>
>>
>>     We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me
>>     know if you have any comments or questions.
>>
>>
>>     Warm regards,
>>
>>     Anja
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>     The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150902/9948bfc0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Sep  2 04:01:20 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 13:31:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>	<55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net>

Hi Anja

There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call
as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained,
public interest information about what is supposed to be a public
interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now.

The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue
because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about
who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to
consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also
greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group
involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part
of category 1 above.)

I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of
category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may
not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective
information under category 1 sought in my earlier email  .

Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues
that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a
worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....


On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who
> first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to
> which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.
>
> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know,
> the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process.
> Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with
> other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even
> eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when
> the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what
> extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken
> into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that
> situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that
> concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York -
> something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't
> guaranteed at all.

Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the
platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your
responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website
<http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian
Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public
interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices')

>
> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are
> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing
> to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and
> minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.

Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not
generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to
answer, you should just say so.

> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried).
> What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult
> decisions indeed did have to be made.

Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an
"Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry
that label.

> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's
> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from
> a range of perspectives.

'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of
perspectives'  :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything,
just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show
how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more
below...


> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two
> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.

Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus
plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of
perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts
all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a
meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.

>
> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people
> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we
> were not able to offer funding.

Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the
decisions.

> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.

But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard
about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this
even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting
my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we
invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not
revealing why you could not - which I now gather was  bec you had this
Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates
were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not
understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being
another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements,
which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to
a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self
funded (although I could not have)  if they knew about this meeting...
But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN
process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of
10 days)...


> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the
> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to
> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full
> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still
> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring
> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing
> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first
> in our region for a meeting of this kind.

I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS
process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases...

>
> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is
> of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day
> one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that
> they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources
> to attend this event and contribute to its success.

But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist,
so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members
especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including
developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource
page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of
contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs,
chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition.
This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of
perspectives'.

(Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been
added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till
yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it
wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC
contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till
yesterday?  )
>
> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are
> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well,

They have worked in this area for quite some time..

> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum
> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to
> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the
> message about this event to them though. If any representative of
> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely,
> they are very welcome to do so, as are you.

Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the
real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and
transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...

>
> Hope this clarifies.

My apologies, but it doesnt.

Best, parminder
>
> Regards,
> Anja
>
>
>
>
> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10
>     Review,
>
>     *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know
>     this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and
>     completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by
>     some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance
>     of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for
>     me to get into this thing....
>
>     This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian
>     Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process,
>     and so some questions arise in my mind:
>
>     (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>
>     (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations
>     sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my
>     view, would be a consultation)
>
>     (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
>     by whom, and who decided it..
>
>     Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
>
>     I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that
>     no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for
>     Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been
>     engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly
>     engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO
>     Engagement Mechanism <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which
>     describes itself as
>
>         "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
>         cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all
>         sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental
>         processes in regional and global level. The platform is
>         initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up
>         under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN
>         agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other
>         development related issues/processes. "
>
>     In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency
>     which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a
>     member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net
>     Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the
>     Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in
>     Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or
>     the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia
>     Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group
>     would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and
>     so my questions..
>
>
>     parminder
>
>
>     On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the
>>     Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners
>>     Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional
>>     Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in
>>     Pattaya, Thailand.
>>
>>
>>     The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring
>>     together experts from different backgrounds and from around the
>>     Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs,
>>     sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to
>>     ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely
>>     address in the process of the review?
>>     *
>>
>>
>>     The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on
>>     the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators
>>     of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can
>>     be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group
>>     will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian
>>     region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work
>>     together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper
>>     (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will
>>     be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft).
>>     The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs
>>     could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure
>>     that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board
>>     in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other
>>     processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into,
>>     these might be taken into consideration as well.
>>
>>
>>     *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting
>>     that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next
>>     input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be
>>     drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a
>>     wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of
>>     professional expertise and geographical location. What unites
>>     all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet
>>     and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human
>>     rights of all in our region.
>>
>>
>>     *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will
>>     be available. *For more information on remote participation and
>>     the event in general, please see the event website
>>     <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.
>>
>>
>>     We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me
>>     know if you have any comments or questions.
>>
>>
>>     Warm regards,
>>
>>     Anja
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>     The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150902/956f4e1e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: resources page asai wsis 10 meeting 010915
Type: application/pdf
Size: 41322 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150902/956f4e1e/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 anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Sep  2 10:16:31 2015
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:46:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] Update on remote participation Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBw9iRDPFsdYw2L2KhUV69HCxgP5cb87bBzy5vLdYCbSg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

As I had mentioned earlier, we would like to ensure that remote
participants of the Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review are
really able to substantively contribute to the outcome of the meeting.
Below is an update on the process that we hope will facilitate this. The
remote moderator will be happy to provide additional details when you join
the session:

1. You can follow any of the sessions via Webex. When you join the
teleconference in Webex, you will find a moderator who will also be in the
meeting room in Pattaya. The moderator will be able to guide you through
the process and also help you to convey your views to the other
participants. Please be in constant contact with the moderator during the
sessions.

2. You are also more than welcome to take part in the development of the
outcome document. The remote moderator will create a chatroom and a
mailing list with those remote participants that want to take part in this
process. Please flag your availability to the moderator as soon as you
join a session.

3. Discussions about the outcome document will take part in the Strategic
sessions at the end of each day, Thursday 3 and Friday 4 of September at
16:00 (UTC+7)/9:00am UTC. During these sessions, remote participants will
have a dedicated teleconference on Webex to share their views and
collectively provide inputs which will be channeled via the moderator into
the rest of the meeting.

4. Please also make sure you participate in the Strategic Session on
Saturday 5 September at 9:15am (UTC+7)/02:00am UTC. This session will
review and approve the final document.

Hope this is useful.

Best regards,
Anja

-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150902/4c88f7d1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Sep  2 22:37:39 2015
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 08:07:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] Update on remote participation Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBw9iRDPFsdYw2L2KhUV69HCxgP5cb87bBzy5vLdYCbSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHBw9iRDPFsdYw2L2KhUV69HCxgP5cb87bBzy5vLdYCbSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBwV+y7oJDi-Xjug5CMjuR7imO_LEqz_8rm1aJ-h4-QVQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please note that due to a technical problem, the remote participation
details for the morning session of the Asian Regional Consultation on the
WSIS+10 Review have changed. Please find the updated details on this page:
http://wsis10.asia/index.php/online-participation.

Do please check back at the beginning of the afternoon session, as the
connection details might change again then.

Also, we would like to invite remote participants to join the meeting email
list. If you would like to do so, please write to info at wsis10.asia to be
added.

Thanks and best regards,
Anja


On 2 September 2015 at 19:46, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As I had mentioned earlier, we would like to ensure that remote
> participants of the Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review are
> really able to substantively contribute to the outcome of the meeting.
> Below is an update on the process that we hope will facilitate this. The
> remote moderator will be happy to provide additional details when you join
> the session:
>
> 1. You can follow any of the sessions via Webex. When you join the
> teleconference in Webex, you will find a moderator who will also be in the
> meeting room in Pattaya. The moderator will be able to guide you through
> the process and also help you to convey your views to the other
> participants. Please be in constant contact with the moderator during the
> sessions.
>
> 2. You are also more than welcome to take part in the development of the
> outcome document. The remote moderator will create a chatroom and a
> mailing list with those remote participants that want to take part in this
> process. Please flag your availability to the moderator as soon as you
> join a session.
>
> 3. Discussions about the outcome document will take part in the Strategic
> sessions at the end of each day, Thursday 3 and Friday 4 of September at
> 16:00 (UTC+7)/9:00am UTC. During these sessions, remote participants will
> have a dedicated teleconference on Webex to share their views and
> collectively provide inputs which will be channeled via the moderator into
> the rest of the meeting.
>
> 4. Please also make sure you participate in the Strategic Session on
> Saturday 5 September at 9:15am (UTC+7)/02:00am UTC. This session will
> review and approve the final document.
>
> Hope this is useful.
>
> Best regards,
> Anja
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150903/95ddf6be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Fri Sep  4 09:30:03 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:30:03 +0200
Subject: [governance] [IWSAC 2015] Submission deadline extended (September
 20)
Message-ID: <007201d0e715$ce083c00$6a18b400$@unimi.it>

***Submission deadline extended to September 20, 2015***

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message]

***************
CALL FOR PAPERS
***************

THIRD INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON SECURITY ASSURANCE IN THE CLOUD (IWSAC 2015)
Held in conjunction with the 11st International Conference on Signal Image
Technology & Internet Based Systems (SITIS 2015) One day between November
23-27, 2015, Bangkok, Thailand Web site: http://sesar.di.unimi.it/IWSAC2015

IWSAC 2015 BACKGROUND AND GOALS
The ongoing merge between Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) and the
Cloud computing paradigm provides a new environment fostering the
integration of services located within company boundaries with those in the
Cloud. An increasing number of organizations implement their business
processes and applications via runtime composition of services made
available in the Cloud by external suppliers. This scenario is changing the
traditional view of security introducing new service security risks and
threats, and requires re-thinking of current assurance, development,
testing, and verification methodologies. In particular, security assurance
in the cloud is becoming a pressing need to increase the confidence of the
cloud actors that the cloud and its services are behaving as expected, and
requires novel approaches addressing SOA and cloud peculiarities. IWSAC 2015
is the third edition of the International Workshop on Security Assurance in
the Cloud. It aims to address the security assurance issues related to the
deployment of services in the Cloud, along with evaluating their impact on
traditional security solutions for software and network systems.

The workshop seeks submissions from academia and industry presenting novel
research on all theoretical and practical aspects of security and assurance
of services implemented in the Cloud, as well as experimental studies in
Cloud infrastructures, the implementation of services, and lessons learned.
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

* Accountability in the cloud
* Authentication and access control in the cloud
* Challenges in moving critical systems to the cloud
* Cloud audit, certification, and compliance
* Cloud transparency, introspection, and outrospection
* Data security and privacy in the Cloud
* Evidence-based assurance of cloud services
* Information assurance and trust management
* Intrusion detection in the cloud
* Policy compliance
* Security assurance in the cloud
* Security and assurance protocols in the cloud
* Security and privacy in the cloud
* Service level agreements
* Service procurement in the cloud
* Verification of cloud services

IMPORTANT DATES
Paper submission due: September 20, 2015 (11:59 PM American Samoa time)
*FIRM*
Notification to authors: October 7, 2015 Camera-ready due: October 15, 2015
Registration due: October 19, 2015

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
Submissions must not substantially overlap papers that have been published
or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or conference/workshop
with proceedings. Each submission should be at most
8 pages in total including bibliography and well-marked appendices, and must
follow the IEEE double columns publication format available at
- [Microsoft Word DOC]
ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/instructA4x2.doc
- [LaTex Formatting Macros]
ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/IEEE_CS_LatexA4x2.zip

A maximum of 2 extra pages can be purchased for the final version of the
accepted papers.

Submissions are to be made to the submission web site
https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sitis2015 by selecting track
"Workshop on Security Assurance in the Cloud". Only pdf files will be
accepted. Submissions not meeting these guidelines risk rejection without
consideration of their merits.

Authors of accepted papers must guarantee that their papers will be
presented at the workshop. At least one author of each accepted paper is
required to register with the main conference and present the paper.
Accepted papers at the workshop will be published in the conference
proceedings and in the IEEE digital library.

IWSAC 2015 COMMITTEES AND CHAIRS

Program Chairs
* Claudio A. Ardagna, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy
* Ernesto Damiani, ETISALAT BT Innovation Center, Khalifa University, UAE
* Massimo Felici, HP Labs, UK

Publicity Chair
* Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

Program Committee
* Marco Anisetti, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy
* Michele Bezzi, SAP, France
* Valentina Casola, University of Naples Federico II, Italy
* Mauro Conti, University of Padua, Italy
* Nora Cuppens-Boulahia, Telecom Bretagne, France
* Alessandra De Benedictis, University of Naples Federico II, Italy
* Eduardo Fernandez, Florida Atlantic University, USA
* William Fitzgerald, UTRC, Ireland
* Filippo Gaudenzi, Università degli studi di Milano, Italy
* Nils Gruschka, NEC Laboratories Europe, Germany
* Meiko Jensen, Southern Denmark University, Denmark
* Mathias Kohler, SAP, Germany
* Jesus Luna, Cloud Security Alliance, UK
* Antonio Mana, Universidad de Malaga, Spain
* Fabio Martinelli, CNR, Italy
* Siani Pearson, HP Labs, UK
* Julinda Stefa, Sapienza University, Italy

This call for papers and additional information about the conference can be
found at http://sesar.di.unimi.it/IWSAC2015




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

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


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Sep  7 01:56:22 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 01:56:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Armenian Internet Governance Forum
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk26Dy_+YcrP6i7p=v3oj_i_9s=r3C=onC7gR1vzD1V+sg@mail.gmail.com>

This is just beginning. Frederic Donck will be doing an intro. Supposedly
all sessions will have English translations. One of many ISOC webcasts
today.

joly posted: "The first Armenian Internet Governance Forum (ArmIGF) will be
held on 7-8 September, 2015 in Yerevan, Armenia. ArmIGF 2015 is organized
by the multistakeholder Internet Governance Council (IGC) of the Republic
of Armenia with the support of the Ministry o"

[image: armigf]The first *Armenian Internet Governance Forum
<http://armigf.am/> *(ArmIGF) will be held on *7-8 September, 2015* in
*Yerevan,
Armenia*. ArmSave <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/>IGF 2015 is organized
by the multistakeholder Internet Governance Council (IGC) of the Republic
of Armenia with the support of the *Ministry of Transport and Communication*
<http://www.gov.am/en/structure/10/> (MTC) and the Internet Society NGO (*ISOC
Armenia* <https://www.isoc.am/>). The main objectives of the forum are: to
provide an open and transparent platform for all stakeholder groups; to
bring up and discuss the Internet governance related issues; to give the
floor to the wide community;to deliver the messages to the policy makers.
The event will be webcast live in English on two tracks, see below. Yerevan
is UTC+4 (8 hours ahead of NYC).








*What: Armenian Internet Governance Forum <http://armigf.am/> Where:
Yerevan, Armenia When: 7-8 September, 2015 Agenda:
http://armigf.am/schedule/ <http://armigf.am/schedule/> Webcast 1:
http://bit.ly/isoctv <http://bit.ly/isoctv> Webcast 2:
http://bit.ly/armigf2 <http://bit.ly/armigf2> Twitter:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/armIGF2015
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/armIGF2015> Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/armIGF2015
<https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/armIGF2015>*


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7995#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7995#comments>




*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7995




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150907/cda3cfea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Sep  7 07:29:13 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 07:29:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_MON/TUE_=E2=80=93_African_Internet?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_Governance_Forum_in_Addis_Ababa?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2JZfLqp6p1QZXmLz2_f_QGgc_nEbQ5JdMs_3PeD57LSg@mail.gmail.com>

​The third mentioned ISOC webcast of the day is not going without the
occasional hitch due to​ connectivity problems, but when it is on, the
quality of the discussion has been of a remarkably high standard. On lunch
break now, after which the "Next Billion" session will start.

joly posted: "On Monday 7 September 2015 and Tuesday 8 September 2015 the
fourth African Internet Governance Forum (AfIGF 2015) is happening at the
AUC New Conference Center in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, organized by the
African Union Commission (AUC) in cooperation with t"


[image: AfIGF 2015]On *Monday 7 September 2015* and *Tuesday 8 September
2015* the fourth *African Internet Governance Forum
<http://afigf.org/?q=AfIGF2015>* (AfIGF 2015) is happening at the AUC New
Conference Center in *Addis Ababa*, Ethiopia, organized by the *African
Union Commission <http://www.au.int/en/commission>* (AUC) in cooperation
with the *United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
<http://www.uneca.org/>*(ECA). AfIGF brings together participants from all
over the continent and outside partners to discuss Africa’s collective
common position on Internet Governance and share best practices based on
the results of national and sub-regional consultations in order to chart
the way for the continent’s participation in the next Internet Governance
Forum (IGF) to be held in João Pessoa, Brazil, in November 2015. The event
is being webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/afigf2015>*.







*What: African Internet Governance Forum 2015
<http://afigf.org/?q=AfIGF2015> Where: AUC New Conference Center, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia When: Monday 7 September 2015, Tuesday 8 September 2015
Agenda:
http://afigf.org/sites/default/files/Draft_Agenda_of_AfIGF2015_Addis_ENG_06_September_pm_REV2.pdf
<http://afigf.org/sites/default/files/Draft_Agenda_of_AfIGF2015_Addis_ENG_06_September_pm_REV2.pdf>
Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/afigf2015
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/afigf2015> Twitter:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/AfIGF2015
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/AfIGF2015> Facebook:
https://facebook.com/hashtag/AfIGF2015
<https://facebook.com/hashtag/AfIGF2015>*




Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8003#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8003#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8003


  <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8003>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150907/c6aeef0c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Mon Sep  7 11:51:07 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:51:07 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net>
 <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D213B395.504C0%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>

Hi Parminder.

I wanted to understand the picture better before writing a response. As I have gone and returned from the Consultation at Pattaya, I feel more able to respond. Fwiw, the outcome document is available at http://wsis10.asia/index.php/outcomes.

Your questions remind me of a similar set of criteria you asked of me re the APrIGF when we held the meeting first in HK and then Singapore. So it’s with that sense of deja vu that I’m writing this email.

I will not go into the details of your questions. (One long reply can only beget another.) Instead, I will focus on what I consider to be the larger issues.

1. I think that such bottom-up initiatives should be encouraged.
It is a lot of work to get going a meeting that attempts to represent AP views. In this consultation, there were forces working against it happening, because of fears that the group might raise sensitive issues. (I hope it did.) You probably mean well but some cheerleading with some gentle nudges (instead of harrumphs) should the group stray would be more encouraging to current and future initiatives.

2. There is a tension between legitimacy and efficacy.
They are not in total contradiction because a non-legitimate outcome will likely not be efficacious. But I hope you can see how trying to cross all the “T"s and dotting the “I"s may mean not moving forward in such situations. For example Edmon and I were so enthused about getting the APrIGF going so that there would be some form of feedback from Asia-Pac to the IGF in 2010 that it took us two years for the APrIGF MSG (a culturally appropriate term) to have me elected as Chair. Before that, as Edmon was leading the event in HK, he chaired the meetings that year; and when I did Singapore, I chaired the meetings for that year. There was sufficient buy-in from the AP organisations in our nascent stage that the APrIGF was able to move forward.

3. So how does one recognise legitimacy?
I don’t see one size fitting all. It is a mix of process and outcome, of being open and inclusive and being transparent in processes and outcomes. But also in achieving at least a reasonable outcome. The ultimate test is acceptance by the Internet community. In the present case, the acceptance of the Pattaya key messages. (Google obviously has questions about legitimacy; it asks, "Did you mean: pattaya massages?”)

4. In the interest of transparency, I declare that the organisers paid for my budget airline ticket from Singapore to Bangkok, the transfers to and from Bangkok airport and the stay in Pattaya. The transfers in Singapore, the tips to the drivers and tips to the staff who serviced my hotel room were paid by me.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>> on behalf of Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Wednesday, 2 September 2015 3:01 pm
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available

Hi Anja

There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained, public interest information about what is supposed to be a public interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now.

The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part of category 1 above.)

I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may not get diluted. So please provide me separately the fully objective information under category 1 sought in my earlier email  .

Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....


On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Hi Parminder,

I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.

Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know, the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process. Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York - something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't guaranteed at all.

Sure... I note the term 'amplify voices' and the neutrality of the platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website<http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices')


The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.

Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to answer, you should just say so.

No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried). What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult decisions indeed did have to be made.

Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry that label.

What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from a range of perspectives.

'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of perspectives'  :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything, just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more below...


A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.

Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.


As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we were not able to offer funding.

Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the decisions.

Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.

But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not revealing why you could not - which I now gather was  bec you had this Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements, which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self funded (although I could not have)  if they knew about this meeting... But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of 10 days)...


In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full modalities of how this will work is something that we are still working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first in our region for a meeting of this kind.

I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases...


Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources to attend this event and contribute to its success.

But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist, so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs, chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition. This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of perspectives'.

(Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but it wasnt there till yesterday, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till yesterday?  )

On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well,

They have worked in this area for quite some time..

and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the message about this event to them though. If any representative of APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely, they are very welcome to do so, as are you.

Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...


Hope this clarifies.

My apologies, but it doesnt.

Best, parminder

Regards,
Anja




On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
Dear organisers of the Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review,

With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for me to get into this thing....

This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process, and so some questions arise in my mind:

(1) who is funding this 'consultation'

(2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my view, would be a consultation)

(3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and by whom, and who decided it..

Thanks for answering these public interest questions...

I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO Engagement Mechanism<http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which describes itself as

"APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental processes in regional and global level. The platform is initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other development related issues/processes. "
In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and so my questions..


parminder


On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Dear all,

The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review from 3 to 5 September in Pattaya, Thailand.

The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring together experts from different backgrounds and from around the Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs, sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to ask: what are the issues that our governments need to squarely address in the process of the review?

The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July). The group will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into, these might be taken into consideration as well.

The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next input round on the Review outcome document. Participants will be drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of professional expertise and geographical location. What unites all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human rights of all in our region.

We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will be available. For more information on remote participation and the event in general, please see the event website<http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.

We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me know if you have any comments or questions.

Warm regards,
Anja


--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

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



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


____________________________________________________________
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



--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

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



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     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

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150907/c86f02f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Sep  8 10:58:13 2015
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:58:13 -0300
Subject: [governance] Cyber Monitor: Mapping the NETmundial Initiative
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3Tr=NNf6+mDihTAzGJbTewVCQbzV8MEWmNtFch9ZgiKA@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings everyone,

I thought it would be of interest to share with you the current issue of
the Cyber Monitor, published monthly by The Observer Research Foundation.
You will find an article I wrote on NETmundial Initiative and an article
from Stephanie Perrin with an excellent overview ICANN's WHOIS policy
discussions.

http://www.orfonline.org/cms/export/orfonline/html/cyber/Cyber-Monitor09.pdf

I also take the opportunity to invite you to participate in two sessions
that will be held by the NETmundial Initiative during the IGF (schedule is
still in draft form):

Open, Informal Council Meeting
Date: Monday, 9 November (DAY 0)
Time: 09:00-13:00
Room: Workshop Room 3

Open Forum
Date: Wednesday, 11 November (DAY 2)
Time: 17:00-18:00
Room: Workshop Room 10

All the best wishes,
Marília

*Mapping the NETmundial Initiative *

Marília Maciel[1] <#_edn1>



The NETmundial Initiative (NMI) is a platform for collaboration among
stakeholders that aims to improve synergy and coordination in the Internet
Governance ecosystem, in cooperation with existing organizations. The
Initiative significantly derives its name and core mission from NETmundial
– the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
– held in April 2014, in Brazil.



NETmundial was organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
(CGI.br) with the support of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN). It was convened by the government of Brazil in the
aftermath of Edward Snowden’s revelations of mass surveillance. One of the
goals of NETmundial was to restore a positive governance environment that
would foster trust and cooperation to face common challenges.



NETmundial was explicitly aimed at addressing two problems: the need to
identify a set of universally acceptable Internet governance principles and
the need to propose a way forward for the evolution of the Internet
governance institutional ecosystem. Both issues were tackled in the
NETmundial outcome document, which embodies a rough consensus across
stakeholder groups. Dissenting voices were few, albeit vocal. Article 19
raised concerns that privacy and net neutrality were not adequately
addressed, on behalf of some civil society organizations. Among countries,
Russia, India and Cuba expressed their reservations.[1] <#_ftn1> This
public divergence seemed to have driven further apart countries that
pursued alliances in the past, such as India and Brazil, and showed some of
the difficulties in articulating political alliances among the BRICS
nations.

On a substantive level, NETmundial’s outcome document represents several
achievements. It placed human rights as the cornerstone of the Internet
governance ecosystem, it supported distributed mechanisms of governance, it
emphasized the importance of enhancing both democratic and multistakeholder
participation, and it ultimately represents progress towards public
interest-driven Internet governance.



After NETmundial, ICANN, the World Economic Forum and CGI.br decided to
work together in order to carry forward the spirit of collaboration that
emerged in São Paulo and to make sure the outcome document became a
reference point for global discussions. These were the three founding
organizations of the NETmundial Initiative.



The creation of NMI was not free of criticism. While some argued that NMI
represented a takeover of Internet Governance by business interests, others
believed that it represented a move towards centralization and mistook it
for a “UN security council of the Internet”. There was also fear that NMI
would compete with existing organizations, such as the Internet Governance
Forum.



In the midst of controversy, the NMI coordinating council was appointed,
consisting of a group of 25 representatives from different stakeholder
groups. The political weight of the council is indisputable. The Minister
of Cyberspace of China, Mr. Lu Wei, shares a sit on the table with the US
Secretary of Commerce, Mrs. Penny Pritzker, with representatives of
companies, such as Telefonica and Alibaba group, and with reputed civil
society and academic organizations, such as the Association for Progressive
Communications (APC) and Human Rights Watch. The multistakeholder
composition of the council strengthened the legitimacy of NMI, however,
some resistance to the Initiative still persists, albeit less embattled.



The first task of the coordinating council was to define the mission and
scope of the NMI, enshrined in its terms of reference. In a nutshell, the
Initiative aims to catalyze cooperation among stakeholders in order to
advance the implementation of the NETmundial Principles and Roadmap. This
mission can be accomplished in different ways. For instance, NMI aims to
serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of
information about Internet governance as well as to provide a platform on
which diverse actors can present projects, solicit partners and establish
collaboration. Both goals are being accomplished with the creation of the
NETmundial solutions map – which identifies clusters of policy related
Internet issues and correlates them with relevant actors, documents and
processes –, and with the upcoming launch of the NETmundial collaboration
platform, which will host project proposals.



The inaugural meeting of NMI took place in June, in São Paulo. It was a
remarkable experience of multistakeholder interaction. Those who watched
the webcast of the meeting were able to witness a lively debate between the
Chinese Minister of Cyberspace and the representative of the Human Rights
Watch over online activism and the protection of human rights. They could
also see Internet tycoons from China and Africa discussing the inclusion of
young people in the job market. The less formal environment of the council
allows for interactions that would never take place under the formality of
the United Nations. This could help to create channels for fruitful and
pragmatic dialogue.



In December 2015, a UN high-level meeting will be held to assess the
progress made in the ten years that followed the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS). One of the key points emerging from the
preparatory discussions is that, at least on the level of discourse, most
countries give support to the idea of a multistakeholder Internet
governance. China mentioned it in several occasions. India’s IT Minister,
Ravi Shankar, supported the multistakeholder approach during his speech in
the 54th ICANN meeting. The path towards convergence seems less cloudy,
including among BRICS. In this scenario, the way to concretely implement
multistakeholder collaboration will probably be the key dispute in the
upcoming years.



The NETmundial Initiative allows the chance to experiment with new models
of collaboration. NMI’s solution-driven approach, made possible by the
environment of trust and openness that is being built in the coordinating
council, may provide a breath of fresh air. It can pave the way for the
implementation of the NETmundial outcome document, a remarkable result of
multistakeholder dialogue and participation.

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

[1] <#_ftnref1> *See *Transcripts of NETmundial closing session, April 24,
2014,
http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETMundial-23April2014-Closing-Session-en.pdf
.

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

[1] <#_ednref1> Ms Marília Maciel is a researcher and coordinator of the
Center for Technology and Society of the Rio de Janeiro Law School of the
Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV). She is one of the five co-chairs of the
NETmundial Initiative.





-- 
*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/20150908/a5b2d3e1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From vanda at uol.com.br  Tue Sep  8 11:48:02 2015
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:48:02 -0300
Subject: [governance] Cyber Monitor: Mapping the NETmundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3Tr=NNf6+mDihTAzGJbTewVCQbzV8MEWmNtFch9ZgiKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK3Tr=NNf6+mDihTAzGJbTewVCQbzV8MEWmNtFch9ZgiKA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D38CACC0-CB76-4EFE-BA5E-850088D9B004@uol.com.br>

Thank you Marilia! 
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 
Sorry for any typos. 


From:  <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Marilia Maciel
Reply-To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org", Marilia Maciel
Date:  Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 11:58
To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org", "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,"
Subject:  [governance] Cyber Monitor: Mapping the NETmundial Initiative

Greetings everyone, 

I thought it would be of interest to share with you the current issue of the Cyber Monitor, published monthly by The Observer Research Foundation. You will find an article I wrote on NETmundial Initiative and an article from Stephanie Perrin with an excellent overview ICANN's WHOIS policy discussions. 

http://www.orfonline.org/cms/export/orfonline/html/cyber/Cyber-Monitor09.pdf

I also take the opportunity to invite you to participate in two sessions that will be held by the NETmundial Initiative during the IGF (schedule is still in draft form):

Open, Informal Council Meeting
Date: Monday, 9 November (DAY 0) 
Time: 09:00-13:00
Room: Workshop Room 3

Open Forum
Date: Wednesday, 11 November (DAY 2) 
Time: 17:00-18:00
Room: Workshop Room 10 

All the best wishes,
Marília

Mapping the NETmundial Initiative 
Marília Maciel[1]

 

The NETmundial Initiative (NMI) is a platform for collaboration among stakeholders that aims to improve synergy and coordination in the Internet Governance ecosystem, in cooperation with existing organizations. The Initiative significantly derives its name and core mission from NETmundial – the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance – held in April 2014, in Brazil. 

 

NETmundial was organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) with the support of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). It was convened by the government of Brazil in the aftermath of Edward Snowden’s revelations of mass surveillance. One of the goals of NETmundial was to restore a positive governance environment that would foster trust and cooperation to face common challenges. 

 

NETmundial was explicitly aimed at addressing two problems: the need to identify a set of universally acceptable Internet governance principles and the need to propose a way forward for the evolution of the Internet governance institutional ecosystem. Both issues were tackled in the NETmundial outcome document, which embodies a rough consensus across stakeholder groups. Dissenting voices were few, albeit vocal. Article 19 raised concerns that privacy and net neutrality were not adequately addressed, on behalf of some civil society organizations. Among countries, Russia, India and Cuba expressed their reservations.[1] This public divergence seemed to have driven further apart countries that pursued alliances in the past, such as India and Brazil, and showed some of the difficulties in articulating political alliances among the BRICS nations. 

On a substantive level, NETmundial’s outcome document represents several achievements. It placed human rights as the cornerstone of the Internet governance ecosystem, it supported distributed mechanisms of governance, it emphasized the importance of enhancing both democratic and multistakeholder participation, and it ultimately represents progress towards public interest-driven Internet governance. 

 

After NETmundial, ICANN, the World Economic Forum and CGI.br decided to work together in order to carry forward the spirit of collaboration that emerged in São Paulo and to make sure the outcome document became a reference point for global discussions. These were the three founding organizations of the NETmundial Initiative.  

 

The creation of NMI was not free of criticism. While some argued that NMI represented a takeover of Internet Governance by business interests, others believed that it represented a move towards centralization and mistook it for a “UN security council of the Internet”. There was also fear that NMI would compete with existing organizations, such as the Internet Governance Forum. 

 

In the midst of controversy, the NMI coordinating council was appointed, consisting of a group of 25 representatives from different stakeholder groups. The political weight of the council is indisputable. The Minister of Cyberspace of China, Mr. Lu Wei, shares a sit on the table with the US Secretary of Commerce, Mrs. Penny Pritzker, with representatives of companies, such as Telefonica and Alibaba group, and with reputed civil society and academic organizations, such as the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and Human Rights Watch. The multistakeholder composition of the council strengthened the legitimacy of NMI, however, some resistance to the Initiative still persists, albeit less embattled.

 

The first task of the coordinating council was to define the mission and scope of the NMI, enshrined in its terms of reference. In a nutshell, the Initiative aims to catalyze cooperation among stakeholders in order to advance the implementation of the NETmundial Principles and Roadmap. This mission can be accomplished in different ways. For instance, NMI aims to serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about Internet governance as well as to provide a platform on which diverse actors can present projects, solicit partners and establish collaboration. Both goals are being accomplished with the creation of the NETmundial solutions map – which identifies clusters of policy related Internet issues and correlates them with relevant actors, documents and processes –, and with the upcoming launch of the NETmundial collaboration platform, which will host project proposals. 

 

The inaugural meeting of NMI took place in June, in São Paulo. It was a remarkable experience of multistakeholder interaction. Those who watched the webcast of the meeting were able to witness a lively debate between the Chinese Minister of Cyberspace and the representative of the Human Rights Watch over online activism and the protection of human rights. They could also see Internet tycoons from China and Africa discussing the inclusion of young people in the job market. The less formal environment of the council allows for interactions that would never take place under the formality of the United Nations. This could help to create channels for fruitful and pragmatic dialogue.

 

In December 2015, a UN high-level meeting will be held to assess the progress made in the ten years that followed the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). One of the key points emerging from the preparatory discussions is that, at least on the level of discourse, most countries give support to the idea of a multistakeholder Internet governance. China mentioned it in several occasions. India’s IT Minister, Ravi Shankar, supported the multistakeholder approach during his speech in the 54th ICANN meeting. The path towards convergence seems less cloudy, including among BRICS. In this scenario, the way to concretely implement multistakeholder collaboration will probably be the key dispute in the upcoming years.

 

The NETmundial Initiative allows the chance to experiment with new models of collaboration. NMI’s solution-driven approach, made possible by the environment of trust and openness that is being built in the coordinating council, may provide a breath of fresh air. It can pave the way for the implementation of the NETmundial outcome document, a remarkable result of multistakeholder dialogue and participation.


[1] See Transcripts of NETmundial closing session, April 24, 2014, http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETMundial-23April2014-Closing-Session-en.pdf.


[1] Ms Marília Maciel is a researcher and coordinator of the Center for Technology and Society of the Rio de Janeiro Law School of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV). She is one of the five co-chairs of the NETmundial Initiative. 

 

 


-- 
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 

____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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/20150908/65f9b39e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Tue Sep  8 12:47:29 2015
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 12:47:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [] IGFmaglist Call for contributions - IGF
 Connecting the Next Billion
In-Reply-To: <SN2PR0601MB717FB342752BCF5CC2DB3FDCA540@SN2PR0601MB717.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <SN2PR0601MB717FB342752BCF5CC2DB3FDCA540@SN2PR0601MB717.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <55EF1121.2030908@acm.org>


fyi

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[IGFmaglist] Call for contributions - IGF Connecting the Next
Billion
Date: 	Tue, 8 Sep 2015 12:38:21 +0000
From: 	Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer at isoc.org>
To: 	MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>,
intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org <intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org>
CC: 	Bp_counteringabuse at intgovforum.org
<Bp_counteringabuse at intgovforum.org>, bp_spam at intgovforum.org
<bp_spam at intgovforum.org>, bp_certs at intgovforum.org
<bp_certs at intgovforum.org>, Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
<Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>, Bp_ixps at intgovforum.org
<Bp_ixps at intgovforum.org>, bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
<bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org>



Dear Colleagues,

IGF Policy Options
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/policy-options-for-connection-the-next-billion>
and Best Practices <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums>
are part of an effort this year for the IGF to develop more tangible
outputs, supporting broader tracks (e.g. SDGs, WSIS+10) while leveraging
the global network of IGFs that are held on all continents.

During last week's Open Consultations and MAG meeting, the IGF community
agreed on the draft skeleton of the "*/*/IGF Policy Options for
Connecting the Next Billion/*/*", available
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aogcq3iqzBRKTRSQlGAuSRvMi8c4rF1GgASoK5vhQbk/edit>here
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aogcq3iqzBRKTRSQlGAuSRvMi8c4rF1GgASoK5vhQbk/edit>.
**

_*ASK*_: All interested stakeholders are invited to:

  * *Join the open-ended editorial group* formed to develop the document
    ahead of IGF Brazil by signing-up to this mailing list
    <http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.org>.

  * *Send additional background contributions* by using this form
    <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/policy-options-for-connection-the-next-billion/contributions>,
    or by writing to gutterman at un.org by 3 Oct. (contributions from
    national/regional IGFs and Best Practices Forums are welcome on an
    ongoing basis). They will feed into the next version of the document
    and will all appear with due attribution on the IGF website
    <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/policy-options-for-connection-the-next-billion/list-of-contributions>. 


*_Next steps:_*
The IGF Secretariat will be working in the coming weeks on editing the
introduction and developing the various sections of the skeleton on the
basis of contributions received. A new draft will be made available for
the consideration of the open-ended editorial group around 21 Sept.

Further information on the methodology and the timeline can be found
here
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/policy-options-for-connection-the-next-billion#about>.


Please disseminate this call for background contributions throughout
your networks.

Thank you and best regards,

Constance Bommelaer



 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/policy-options-for-connection-the-next-billion>




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

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

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Sep  8 12:53:40 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 18:53:40 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Cyber Monitor: Mapping the NETmundial Initiative
References: <CACpVkK3Tr=NNf6+mDihTAzGJbTewVCQbzV8MEWmNtFch9ZgiKA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A2A115@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thx. Marilia,

I like the very cool and fact based analysis. NMI has entered uncharted territory. Let´s continue to explore the new space.

Wolfgang

  


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Marilia Maciel
Gesendet: Di 08.09.2015 16:58
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Betreff: [governance] Cyber Monitor: Mapping the NETmundial Initiative
 
Greetings everyone,

I thought it would be of interest to share with you the current issue of
the Cyber Monitor, published monthly by The Observer Research Foundation.
You will find an article I wrote on NETmundial Initiative and an article
from Stephanie Perrin with an excellent overview ICANN's WHOIS policy
discussions.

http://www.orfonline.org/cms/export/orfonline/html/cyber/Cyber-Monitor09.pdf

I also take the opportunity to invite you to participate in two sessions
that will be held by the NETmundial Initiative during the IGF (schedule is
still in draft form):

Open, Informal Council Meeting
Date: Monday, 9 November (DAY 0)
Time: 09:00-13:00
Room: Workshop Room 3

Open Forum
Date: Wednesday, 11 November (DAY 2)
Time: 17:00-18:00
Room: Workshop Room 10

All the best wishes,
Marília

*Mapping the NETmundial Initiative *

Marília Maciel[1] <#_edn1>



The NETmundial Initiative (NMI) is a platform for collaboration among
stakeholders that aims to improve synergy and coordination in the Internet
Governance ecosystem, in cooperation with existing organizations. The
Initiative significantly derives its name and core mission from NETmundial
- the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
- held in April 2014, in Brazil.



NETmundial was organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
(CGI.br) with the support of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN). It was convened by the government of Brazil in the
aftermath of Edward Snowden's revelations of mass surveillance. One of the
goals of NETmundial was to restore a positive governance environment that
would foster trust and cooperation to face common challenges.



NETmundial was explicitly aimed at addressing two problems: the need to
identify a set of universally acceptable Internet governance principles and
the need to propose a way forward for the evolution of the Internet
governance institutional ecosystem. Both issues were tackled in the
NETmundial outcome document, which embodies a rough consensus across
stakeholder groups. Dissenting voices were few, albeit vocal. Article 19
raised concerns that privacy and net neutrality were not adequately
addressed, on behalf of some civil society organizations. Among countries,
Russia, India and Cuba expressed their reservations.[1] <#_ftn1> This
public divergence seemed to have driven further apart countries that
pursued alliances in the past, such as India and Brazil, and showed some of
the difficulties in articulating political alliances among the BRICS
nations.

On a substantive level, NETmundial's outcome document represents several
achievements. It placed human rights as the cornerstone of the Internet
governance ecosystem, it supported distributed mechanisms of governance, it
emphasized the importance of enhancing both democratic and multistakeholder
participation, and it ultimately represents progress towards public
interest-driven Internet governance.



After NETmundial, ICANN, the World Economic Forum and CGI.br decided to
work together in order to carry forward the spirit of collaboration that
emerged in São Paulo and to make sure the outcome document became a
reference point for global discussions. These were the three founding
organizations of the NETmundial Initiative.



The creation of NMI was not free of criticism. While some argued that NMI
represented a takeover of Internet Governance by business interests, others
believed that it represented a move towards centralization and mistook it
for a "UN security council of the Internet". There was also fear that NMI
would compete with existing organizations, such as the Internet Governance
Forum.



In the midst of controversy, the NMI coordinating council was appointed,
consisting of a group of 25 representatives from different stakeholder
groups. The political weight of the council is indisputable. The Minister
of Cyberspace of China, Mr. Lu Wei, shares a sit on the table with the US
Secretary of Commerce, Mrs. Penny Pritzker, with representatives of
companies, such as Telefonica and Alibaba group, and with reputed civil
society and academic organizations, such as the Association for Progressive
Communications (APC) and Human Rights Watch. The multistakeholder
composition of the council strengthened the legitimacy of NMI, however,
some resistance to the Initiative still persists, albeit less embattled.



The first task of the coordinating council was to define the mission and
scope of the NMI, enshrined in its terms of reference. In a nutshell, the
Initiative aims to catalyze cooperation among stakeholders in order to
advance the implementation of the NETmundial Principles and Roadmap. This
mission can be accomplished in different ways. For instance, NMI aims to
serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of
information about Internet governance as well as to provide a platform on
which diverse actors can present projects, solicit partners and establish
collaboration. Both goals are being accomplished with the creation of the
NETmundial solutions map - which identifies clusters of policy related
Internet issues and correlates them with relevant actors, documents and
processes -, and with the upcoming launch of the NETmundial collaboration
platform, which will host project proposals.



The inaugural meeting of NMI took place in June, in São Paulo. It was a
remarkable experience of multistakeholder interaction. Those who watched
the webcast of the meeting were able to witness a lively debate between the
Chinese Minister of Cyberspace and the representative of the Human Rights
Watch over online activism and the protection of human rights. They could
also see Internet tycoons from China and Africa discussing the inclusion of
young people in the job market. The less formal environment of the council
allows for interactions that would never take place under the formality of
the United Nations. This could help to create channels for fruitful and
pragmatic dialogue.



In December 2015, a UN high-level meeting will be held to assess the
progress made in the ten years that followed the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS). One of the key points emerging from the
preparatory discussions is that, at least on the level of discourse, most
countries give support to the idea of a multistakeholder Internet
governance. China mentioned it in several occasions. India's IT Minister,
Ravi Shankar, supported the multistakeholder approach during his speech in
the 54th ICANN meeting. The path towards convergence seems less cloudy,
including among BRICS. In this scenario, the way to concretely implement
multistakeholder collaboration will probably be the key dispute in the
upcoming years.



The NETmundial Initiative allows the chance to experiment with new models
of collaboration. NMI's solution-driven approach, made possible by the
environment of trust and openness that is being built in the coordinating
council, may provide a breath of fresh air. It can pave the way for the
implementation of the NETmundial outcome document, a remarkable result of
multistakeholder dialogue and participation.

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

[1] <#_ftnref1> *See *Transcripts of NETmundial closing session, April 24,
2014,
http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETMundial-23April2014-Closing-Session-en.pdf
.

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

[1] <#_ednref1> Ms Marília Maciel is a researcher and coordinator of the
Center for Technology and Society of the Rio de Janeiro Law School of the
Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV). She is one of the five co-chairs of the
NETmundial Initiative.





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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Sep  8 22:28:50 2015
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 07:58:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] CIS comments to the ICG
In-Reply-To: <55EF6D40.6040806@cis-india.org>
References: <55EF6D40.6040806@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <55EF9962.7010600@cis-india.org>

Dear all,
This is what we submitted from the Centre for Internet and Society.  We 
invoked IGC statements from 2005, during the WSIS process, in our 
submission.

Regards,
Pranesh

-- 
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_prakash


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2015-09-08_cis-response-to-icg.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 494097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150909/3db7d990/attachment.pdf>
-------------- 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/20150909/3db7d990/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Wed Sep  9 01:11:56 2015
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 07:11:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] CIS comments to the ICG
In-Reply-To: <55EF9962.7010600@cis-india.org>
References: <55EF6D40.6040806@cis-india.org> <55EF9962.7010600@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <86B9BE23-2C75-4F2E-B847-0F678EF09288@gmail.com>

Dear Pranesh, 

Many thanks to you and all contributors for this excellent submission, clear and documented. It is of great interest and help.

Best,
JC


Le 9 sept. 2015 à 04:28, Pranesh Prakash a écrit :

> Dear all,
> This is what we submitted from the Centre for Internet and Society.  We invoked IGC statements from 2005, during the WSIS process, in our submission.
> 
> Regards,
> Pranesh
> 
> -- 
> 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_prakash
> 
> 
> <2015-09-08_cis-response-to-icg.pdf>


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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Sep  9 03:04:47 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:34:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <D213B395.504C0%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com> <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com> <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> <D213B395.504C0%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <55EFDA0F.4010009@itforchange.net>

On Monday 07 September 2015 09:21 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Hi Parminder.
>
> I wanted to understand the picture better before writing a response.
> As I have gone and returned from the Consultation at Pattaya, I feel
> more able to respond.

Dear Peng Hwa,

I read your email several times, because you call it a response to my
email, but I still could not see the response. As you will see from the
trailing emails, I deliberately sent two different emails raising two
sets of issues - one set more important, primary, and substantively
clear and precise, and the other kind of subsidiary, although also quite
important. I requested that the first set be addressed separately so
that there is no loss of focus from the primary set of the most
important and, to repeat, precise and clear issues of transparency and
accountability. I repeat them;

(1) who is funding this 'consultation'

(2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations sent,
and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my view, would
be a consultation)

(3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and by
whom, and who decided it..

(Let me also stress the issue of it being a 'consultation' and an 'Asia
Pacific consultation' at that which greatly increases the salience of
the above points.)

The only response I can understand to this request is either to agree
that these questions of transparency and accountability are important,
and add your voice to them, or disagree and hold them to be not
important or necessary. I really am not able to see from your email
which of the two possible responses are you indicating. I will request
you to clarify this . Thanks.

> Fwiw, the outcome document is available
> at http://wsis10.asia/index.php/outcomes.

Yes, I saw it. Notably, it says " Accountability and transparency must
also be applied to other stakeholder groups, including but not limited
to the private sector..." and "Transparent and accountable procedural
rules that empower marginalised voices and those who lack technical
expertise need to be developed."

!!??

I want to be very respectful to those who evolved this document, but
seriously, I am fully confounded.... Can one get away by saying and
claiming anything, while publicly acting in quite the opposite manner
(this is with regard to the organisers), that too in the civil society
space that is supposed to be the morality holder of the society. Maybe
you have some comments on this.

Best regards
parminder

>
> Your questions remind me of a similar set of criteria you asked of me
> re the APrIGF when we held the meeting first in HK and then Singapore.
> So it’s with that sense of deja vu that I’m writing this email.
>
> I will not go into the details of your questions. (One long reply can
> only beget another.) Instead, I will focus on what I consider to be
> the larger issues.
>
> 1. I think that such bottom-up initiatives should be encouraged.
> It is a lot of work to get going a meeting that attempts to represent
> AP views. In this consultation, there were forces working against it
> happening, because of fears that the group might raise sensitive
> issues. (I hope it did.) You probably mean well but some cheerleading
> with some gentle nudges (instead of harrumphs) should the group stray
> would be more encouraging to current and future initiatives.
>
> 2. There is a tension between legitimacy and efficacy. 
> They are not in total contradiction because a non-legitimate outcome
> will likely not be efficacious. But I hope you can see how trying to
> cross all the “T"s and dotting the “I"s may mean not moving forward in
> such situations. For example Edmon and I were so enthused about
> getting the APrIGF going so that there would be some form of feedback
> from Asia-Pac to the IGF in 2010 that it took us two years for the
> APrIGF MSG (a culturally appropriate term) to have me elected as
> Chair. Before that, as Edmon was leading the event in HK, he chaired
> the meetings that year; and when I did Singapore, I chaired the
> meetings for that year. There was sufficient buy-in from the AP
> organisations in our nascent stage that the APrIGF was able to move
> forward. 
>
> 3. So how does one recognise legitimacy?
> I don’t see one size fitting all. It is a mix of process and outcome,
> of being open and inclusive and being transparent in processes and
> outcomes. But also in achieving at least a reasonable outcome. The
> ultimate test is acceptance by the Internet community. In the present
> case, the acceptance of the Pattaya key messages. (Google obviously
> has questions about legitimacy; it asks, "Did you mean: pattaya
> massages?”)
>
> 4. In the interest of transparency, I declare that the organisers paid
> for my budget airline ticket from Singapore to Bangkok, the transfers
> to and from Bangkok airport and the stay in Pattaya. The transfers in
> Singapore, the tips to the drivers and tips to the staff who serviced
> my hotel room were paid by me. 
>
> Regards, 
> Peng Hwa
>
> From: <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>> on behalf of Parminder
> Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, 2 September 2015 3:01 pm
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
> Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian
> Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation
> available
>
> Hi Anja
>
> There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call
> as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained,
> public interest information about what is supposed to be a public
> interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just
> now.
>
> The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue
> because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about
> who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to
> consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also
> greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the
> group involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info
> is part of category 1 above.)
>
> I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity
> of category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives
> involved, may not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully
> objective information under category 1 sought in my earlier email  .
>
> Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental
> issues that are involved, which while being not fully objective are
> still a worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....
>
>
> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> Hi Parminder,
>>
>> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person
>> who first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message
>> to which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.
>>
>> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all
>> know, the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led
>> process. Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations
>> with other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely
>> scanty even eight months before the review was supposed to take
>> place. Even when the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't
>> clear to what extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments
>> would be taken into account. This meeting is an attempt to be
>> proactive in that situation, trying to amplify voices from our region
>> to make sure that concerns from this region actually find resonance
>> in New York - something that, seeing how far removed we are from
>> there, isn't guaranteed at all.
>
> Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the
> platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your
> responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website
> <http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> carries this blurb "Amplifying
> Asian Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important
> public interest question about who determines and filters what are
> 'Asian Voices')
>
>>
>> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are
>> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were
>> willing to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's
>> time and minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.
>
> Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not
> generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse
> to answer, you should just say so.
>
>> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I
>> tried). What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and
>> difficult decisions indeed did have to be made.
>
> Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all
> an "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also
> carry that label.
>
>> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's
>> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues
>> from a range of perspectives.
>
> 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of
> perspectives'  :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write
> anything, just because it sounds good and is of a general nature....
> Can you show how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective,
> about which more below...
>
>
>> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two
>> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.
>
> Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus
> plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of
> perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts
> all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have
> a meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.
>
>>
>> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people
>> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we
>> were not able to offer funding.
>
> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the
> decisions.
>
>> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.
>
> But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first
> heard about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below
> -- this even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact
> a meeting my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to
> which we invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage
> not revealing why you could not - which I now gather was  bec you had
> this Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and
> dates were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I
> do not understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than
> it being another link in the long chain of general, good sounding,
> statements, which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not
> contribute to a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could
> have self funded (although I could not have)  if they knew about this
> meeting... But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional
> Consultation' of a UN process is being held even without sufficient
> notice to people (all of 10 days)...
>
>
>> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the
>> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to
>> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full
>> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still
>> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring
>> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing
>> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a
>> first in our region for a meeting of this kind.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original
> WSIS process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its
> phases...
>
>>
>> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited
>> is of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from
>> day one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy
>> that they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own
>> resources to attend this event and contribute to its success.
>
> But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition
> elist, so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC
> members especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement
> including developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the
> resource page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of
> contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs,
> chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition.
> This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of
> perspectives'.
>
> (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been
> added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till
> yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it
> wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC
> contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till
> yesterday?  )
>>
>> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are
>> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as
>> well,
>
> They have worked in this area for quite some time..
>
>> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum
>> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to
>> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
>> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the
>> message about this event to them though. If any representative of
>> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or
>> remotely, they are very welcome to do so, as are you.
>
> Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the
> real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes
> and transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...
>
>>
>> Hope this clarifies.
>
> My apologies, but it doesnt.
>
> Best, parminder
>>
>> Regards,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10
>>     Review,
>>
>>     *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know
>>     this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and
>>     completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by
>>     some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance
>>     of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even
>>     for me to get into this thing....
>>
>>     This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian
>>     Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process,
>>     and so some questions arise in my mind:
>>
>>     (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>>
>>     (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and
>>     invitations sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited
>>     (that, in my view, would be a consultation)
>>
>>     (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
>>     by whom, and who decided it..
>>
>>     Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
>>
>>     I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that
>>     no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for
>>     Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been
>>     engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly
>>     engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO
>>     Engagement Mechanism <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which
>>     describes itself as
>>
>>         "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
>>         cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all
>>         sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental
>>         processes in regional and global level. The platform is
>>         initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up
>>         under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN
>>         agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other
>>         development related issues/processes. "
>>
>>     In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology
>>     Constituency which works as an active network (of which IT for
>>     Change is a member) which has begun to work closely with the Just
>>     Net Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the
>>     Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in
>>     Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or
>>     the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia
>>     Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group
>>     would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder,
>>     and so my questions..
>>
>>
>>     parminder
>>
>>
>>     On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>     Dear all,
>>>
>>>     The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the
>>>     Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global
>>>     Partners Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian
>>>     Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5
>>>     September in Pattaya, Thailand.
>>>
>>>
>>>     The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring
>>>     together experts from different backgrounds and from around the
>>>     Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs,
>>>     sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance,
>>>     to ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to
>>>     squarely address in the process of the review?
>>>     *
>>>
>>>
>>>     The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment
>>>     on the non-paper that will have been released by the
>>>     co-facilitators of the review process in late August (inputs
>>>     into that paper can be made by all stakeholders and are due on
>>>     31 July).The group will take stock of the extent to which
>>>     priorities for the Asian region have been reflected in the
>>>     non-paper, and will work together on formulating a joint comment
>>>     on the non-paper (comments on the non-paper will be due in
>>>     mid-September, and will be drawn on by the co-facilitators to
>>>     formulate a zero-draft). The group will also look forward to
>>>     consider which further inputs could be made or actions could be
>>>     taken strategically to ensure that priorities from the Asian
>>>     region are fully taken onto board in the final WSIS+10 Review
>>>     outcome documents. If there are other processes the group
>>>     believes this work could usefully feed into, these might be
>>>     taken into consideration as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>     *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working
>>>     meeting that is geared towards producing a joint submission to
>>>     the next input round on the Review outcome document.
>>>     *Participants will be drawn from all non-government stakeholder
>>>     groups, and will have a wide and rich variety of backgrounds,
>>>     both in terms of professional expertise and geographical
>>>     location. What unites all, however, is a shared commitment to a
>>>     free and open Internet and to the use of technology to benefit
>>>     the development and human rights of all in our region.
>>>
>>>
>>>     *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will
>>>     be available. *For more information on remote participation and
>>>     the event in general, please see the event website
>>>     <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia
>>>     #wsis10.
>>>
>>>
>>>     We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me
>>>     know if you have any comments or questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Warm regards,
>>>
>>>     Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>     The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named
> and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or
> disclose its contents.
> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150909/96ac6e93/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Sep  9 04:47:57 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:17:57 +0530
Subject: [governance] CIS comments to the ICG
In-Reply-To: <55EF9962.7010600@cis-india.org>
References: <55EF6D40.6040806@cis-india.org> <55EF9962.7010600@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <55EFF23D.8010800@itforchange.net>

Dear Pranesh and Jyoti,

Thanks for this excellent paper - also extremely well researched and
presented..
I fully agree with it.

(Please note that in the sentence "The consolidated proposal as it
stands is reflective of a truly global multi-stakeholder Internet
community", evidently, a 'NOT' is missing.)

The problem is that even with such serious and widespread
dissatisfaction with the final proposals on the table, it is being
pushed and will be legitimised as having the consensus of the community.
And if you ask what is meant by 'community' you get very slippery
responses. 'Community' can be those who actually traditionally engage
with the ICANN processes, and at other times it can be the global
public, in which sense I understand the NTIA framed its criterion of
transition of oversight to 'the global multistakeholder community'. It
is between these two very different meanings of 'community' that the
entire exercise hides its lack of legitimacy, and is able to produce
'outcomes' that merely cement the status quo, as you argue so well. This
I think is particularly disingenuous and must be called out. 

It is, unfortunately, a good case study of how 'openness' can be twisted
(openness in the meaning of 'flexibility' instead of what it should be,
'equitable participation').

Also, points to some theoretical problems with multistakehoderism. A
stakeholder gets defined by the degree of engagement (this is how the
ICANN oversight process gets away with its definition of 'community')
while 'public' is defined by default political ownership, whether or not
one is able to engage, and independent of the degree of actual engagement.

parminder

On Wednesday 09 September 2015 07:58 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> Dear all,
> This is what we submitted from the Centre for Internet and Society. 
> We invoked IGC statements from 2005, during the WSIS process, in our
> submission.
>
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150909/9910491a/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/20150909/9910491a/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 iza at anr.org  Wed Sep  9 23:01:08 2015
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:01:08 +0900
Subject: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices
 from the Asia-Pacific Region
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKinvx9nC8w2YmGbsBrCCnTheHt5aWUyz=y3Aezfi6mmKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, (Sorry for multi-posting),

Some 38 people had a 3-day meeting in Pattaya on the WSIS+10 review and
produced the following "Key Messages".

Having seen no post [yet], I am tempted to share the link here as one of
the participants of the meeting.

http://www.wsis10.asia/

It was an interesting exercise, and most of the process of the discussions
are documented here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPU7Vv4W6hcRtOopMxXn6H_2e3LUiN4ckLdVv3FPQoQ/edit

By using Google Doc, we were making and sharing realtime notes during the
meeting, was very productive to make it an inclusive meeting in my view.

Many thanks to the organizers!

izumi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/ec898324/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From valeriab at apc.org  Wed Sep  9 23:24:06 2015
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 22:24:06 -0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net>
 <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org>

Dear Parminder,

I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who
is not subscribed to these lists.

Best,

Valeria
----

APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which
helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively
participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as
the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive
than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance
processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil
society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and
informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up
opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin
America, Africa and Asia.

In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed
the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia
in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in
funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified
participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can
contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget
to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where
this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from
Sida, DGIS and EIDHR.

>From the onset, the organisers were aware that we could only bring a
limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of
all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was
expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe
that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome
document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the
various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was
meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make
submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level
meeting in December.

For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see:
https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie

Best,

Chat

On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote:
> Hi Anja
> 
> There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call
> as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained,
> public interest information about what is supposed to be a public
> interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now.
> 
> The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue
> because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about
> who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to
> consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also
> greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group
> involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part
> of category 1 above.)
> 
> I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of
> category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may
> not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective
> information under category 1 sought in my earlier email  .
> 
> Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues
> that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a
> worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> Hi Parminder,
>>
>> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who
>> first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to
>> which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.
>>
>> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know,
>> the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process.
>> Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with
>> other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even
>> eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when
>> the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what
>> extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken
>> into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that
>> situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that
>> concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York -
>> something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't
>> guaranteed at all.
> 
> Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the
> platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your
> responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website
> <http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian
> Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public
> interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices')
> 
>>
>> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are
>> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing
>> to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and
>> minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.
> 
> Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not
> generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to
> answer, you should just say so.
> 
>> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried).
>> What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult
>> decisions indeed did have to be made.
> 
> Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an
> "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry
> that label.
> 
>> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's
>> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from
>> a range of perspectives.
> 
> 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of
> perspectives'  :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything,
> just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show
> how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more
> below...
> 
> 
>> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two
>> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.
> 
> Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus
> plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of
> perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts
> all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a
> meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.
> 
>>
>> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people
>> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we
>> were not able to offer funding.
> 
> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the
> decisions.
> 
>> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.
> 
> But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard
> about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this
> even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting
> my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we
> invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not
> revealing why you could not - which I now gather was  bec you had this
> Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates
> were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not
> understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being
> another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements,
> which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to
> a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self
> funded (although I could not have)  if they knew about this meeting...
> But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN
> process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of
> 10 days)...
> 
> 
>> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the
>> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to
>> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full
>> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still
>> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring
>> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing
>> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first
>> in our region for a meeting of this kind.
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS
> process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases...
> 
>>
>> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is
>> of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day
>> one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that
>> they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources
>> to attend this event and contribute to its success.
> 
> But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist,
> so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members
> especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including
> developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource
> page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of
> contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs,
> chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition.
> This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of
> perspectives'.
> 
> (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been
> added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till
> yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it
> wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC
> contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till
> yesterday?  )
>>
>> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are
>> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well,
> 
> They have worked in this area for quite some time..
> 
>> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum
>> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to
>> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
>> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the
>> message about this event to them though. If any representative of
>> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely,
>> they are very welcome to do so, as are you.
> 
> Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the
> real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and
> transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...
> 
>>
>> Hope this clarifies.
> 
> My apologies, but it doesnt.
> 
> Best, parminder
>>
>> Regards,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10
>>     Review,
>>
>>     *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know
>>     this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and
>>     completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by
>>     some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance
>>     of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for
>>     me to get into this thing....
>>
>>     This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian
>>     Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process,
>>     and so some questions arise in my mind:
>>
>>     (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>>
>>     (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations
>>     sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my
>>     view, would be a consultation)
>>
>>     (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
>>     by whom, and who decided it..
>>
>>     Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
>>
>>     I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that
>>     no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for
>>     Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been
>>     engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly
>>     engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO
>>     Engagement Mechanism <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which
>>     describes itself as
>>
>>         "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
>>         cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all
>>         sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental
>>         processes in regional and global level. The platform is
>>         initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up
>>         under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN
>>         agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other
>>         development related issues/processes. "
>>
>>     In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency
>>     which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a
>>     member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net
>>     Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the
>>     Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in
>>     Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or
>>     the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia
>>     Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group
>>     would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and
>>     so my questions..
>>
>>
>>     parminder
>>
>>
>>     On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>     Dear all,
>>>
>>>     The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the
>>>     Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners
>>>     Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional
>>>     Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in
>>>     Pattaya, Thailand.
>>>
>>>
>>>     The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring
>>>     together experts from different backgrounds and from around the
>>>     Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs,
>>>     sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to
>>>     ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely
>>>     address in the process of the review?
>>>     *
>>>
>>>
>>>     The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on
>>>     the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators
>>>     of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can
>>>     be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group
>>>     will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian
>>>     region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work
>>>     together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper
>>>     (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will
>>>     be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft).
>>>     The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs
>>>     could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure
>>>     that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board
>>>     in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other
>>>     processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into,
>>>     these might be taken into consideration as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>     *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting
>>>     that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next
>>>     input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be
>>>     drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a
>>>     wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of
>>>     professional expertise and geographical location. What unites
>>>     all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet
>>>     and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human
>>>     rights of all in our region.
>>>
>>>
>>>     *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will
>>>     be available. *For more information on remote participation and
>>>     the event in general, please see the event website
>>>     <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.
>>>
>>>
>>>     We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me
>>>     know if you have any comments or questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Warm regards,
>>>
>>>     Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>     The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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
> 

-- 

Valeria Betancourt
Directora / Manager
Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and
Information Policy Programme
Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
Progressive Communications, APC
http://www.apc.org

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

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 10 01:57:57 2015
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 05:57:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices
 from the Asia-Pacific Region
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKinvx9nC8w2YmGbsBrCCnTheHt5aWUyz=y3Aezfi6mmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKinvx9nC8w2YmGbsBrCCnTheHt5aWUyz=y3Aezfi6mmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <783726763.275907.1441864677672.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Thanks Izumi for sharing the discussion document of Interactive and Interesting Sessions.
Regards
Imran
 
      From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
 To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
 Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2015, 8:01
 Subject: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region
   
Hi, (Sorry for multi-posting),
Some 38 people had a 3-day meeting in Pattaya on the WSIS+10 review and produced the following "Key Messages".
Having seen no post [yet], I am tempted to share the link here as one of the participants of the meeting.
http://www.wsis10.asia/

It was an interesting exercise, and most of the process of the discussions are documented here.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPU7Vv4W6hcRtOopMxXn6H_2e3LUiN4ckLdVv3FPQoQ/edit

By using Google Doc, we were making and sharing realtime notes during the meeting, was very productive to make it an inclusive meeting in my view.
Many thanks to the organizers!
izumi




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

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

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


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/90c216b6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Thu Sep 10 02:25:28 2015
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:25:28 +0900
Subject: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices
 from the Asia-Pacific Region
In-Reply-To: <783726763.275907.1441864677672.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CA+YNoKinvx9nC8w2YmGbsBrCCnTheHt5aWUyz=y3Aezfi6mmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <783726763.275907.1441864677672.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKhc_feVHPRGnO50LGWq66Dut0BPtCbMGpqA=D+0Qkde-Q@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Imran,

yes, making real-time discussion and document at the same time was a very
challenging, but also rewarding experiment - everyone was able to
participate in the discussion, could see the other groups work in progress
during the break-out Working Group sessions in real time, etc, etc.

Instead of chatting or tweeting, all are documented in a single file, or
linked file, so that we became much more structured and logical, could stay
more focused.

Making a poll in the middle of sessions was also quite effective, putting
photos were fun and added more color.

Worth to continue this kind of experience.

izumi

2015-09-10 14:57 GMT+09:00 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:

> Thanks Izumi for sharing the discussion document of Interactive and
> Interesting Sessions.
>
> Regards
>
> Imran
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
> *To:* governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "<
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 10 September 2015, 8:01
> *Subject:* [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review:
> Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region
>
> Hi, (Sorry for multi-posting),
>
> Some 38 people had a 3-day meeting in Pattaya on the WSIS+10 review and
> produced the following "Key Messages".
>
> Having seen no post [yet], I am tempted to share the link here as one of
> the participants of the meeting.
>
> http://www.wsis10.asia/
>
> It was an interesting exercise, and most of the process of the discussions
> are documented here.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPU7Vv4W6hcRtOopMxXn6H_2e3LUiN4ckLdVv3FPQoQ/edit
>
> By using Google Doc, we were making and sharing realtime notes during the
> meeting, was very productive to make it an inclusive meeting in my view.
>
> Many thanks to the organizers!
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/77231c9d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From arunmohan.s at gmail.com  Thu Sep 10 02:36:37 2015
From: arunmohan.s at gmail.com (Arun Mohan Sukumar)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:06:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices
 from the Asia-Pacific Region
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKhc_feVHPRGnO50LGWq66Dut0BPtCbMGpqA=D+0Qkde-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKinvx9nC8w2YmGbsBrCCnTheHt5aWUyz=y3Aezfi6mmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <783726763.275907.1441864677672.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CA+YNoKhc_feVHPRGnO50LGWq66Dut0BPtCbMGpqA=D+0Qkde-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAo0AXvWw-1-PtJY5LmheTtpS5m07+90YXFbaNyXkddQmoVvuQ@mail.gmail.com>

Izumi, thanks for posting this - has the draft outcome doc from the
consultation been published? I may have missed it, apologies if it's
already been put out.

Best,
Arun

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Thanks Imran,
>
> yes, making real-time discussion and document at the same time was a very
> challenging, but also rewarding experiment - everyone was able to
> participate in the discussion, could see the other groups work in progress
> during the break-out Working Group sessions in real time, etc, etc.
>
> Instead of chatting or tweeting, all are documented in a single file, or
> linked file, so that we became much more structured and logical, could stay
> more focused.
>
> Making a poll in the middle of sessions was also quite effective, putting
> photos were fun and added more color.
>
> Worth to continue this kind of experience.
>
> izumi
>
> 2015-09-10 14:57 GMT+09:00 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
>
>> Thanks Izumi for sharing the discussion document of Interactive and
>> Interesting Sessions.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Imran
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
>> *To:* governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "<
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 10 September 2015, 8:01
>> *Subject:* [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review:
>> Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region
>>
>> Hi, (Sorry for multi-posting),
>>
>> Some 38 people had a 3-day meeting in Pattaya on the WSIS+10 review and
>> produced the following "Key Messages".
>>
>> Having seen no post [yet], I am tempted to share the link here as one of
>> the participants of the meeting.
>>
>> http://www.wsis10.asia/
>>
>> It was an interesting exercise, and most of the process of the
>> discussions are documented here.
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPU7Vv4W6hcRtOopMxXn6H_2e3LUiN4ckLdVv3FPQoQ/edit
>>
>> By using Google Doc, we were making and sharing realtime notes during the
>> meeting, was very productive to make it an inclusive meeting in my view.
>>
>> Many thanks to the organizers!
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com
+91-9871943272
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/d440c5be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Sep 10 02:45:39 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:15:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com> <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com> <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> <55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org>
Message-ID: <55F12713.909@itforchange.net>

Dear Valeria and Chat,

Thanks for the below. Yours disclosures are exemplary. I hope others
follow the example.

I think that it is best to just declare full details - esp funding and
decision making processes - of such meetings by the organisers. And I
keep repeating, particularly bec this meeting was called  Asia Pacific
Consultation ...

parminder

On Thursday 10 September 2015 08:54 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who
> is not subscribed to these lists.
>
> Best,
>
> Valeria
> ----
>
> APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which
> helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively
> participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as
> the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive
> than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance
> processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil
> society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and
> informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up
> opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin
> America, Africa and Asia.
>
> In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed
> the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia
> in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in
> funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified
> participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can
> contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget
> to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where
> this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from
> Sida, DGIS and EIDHR.
>
> >From the onset, the organisers were aware that we could only bring a
> limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of
> all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was
> expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe
> that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome
> document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the
> various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was
> meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make
> submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level
> meeting in December.
>
> For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see:
> https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie
>
> Best,
>
> Chat
>
> On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote:
>> Hi Anja
>>
>> There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call
>> as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained,
>> public interest information about what is supposed to be a public
>> interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now.
>>
>> The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue
>> because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about
>> who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to
>> consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also
>> greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group
>> involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part
>> of category 1 above.)
>>
>> I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of
>> category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may
>> not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective
>> information under category 1 sought in my earlier email  .
>>
>> Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues
>> that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a
>> worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>
>>> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who
>>> first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to
>>> which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.
>>>
>>> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know,
>>> the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process.
>>> Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with
>>> other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even
>>> eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when
>>> the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what
>>> extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken
>>> into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that
>>> situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that
>>> concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York -
>>> something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't
>>> guaranteed at all.
>> Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the
>> platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your
>> responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website
>> <http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian
>> Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public
>> interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices')
>>
>>> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are
>>> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing
>>> to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and
>>> minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.
>> Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not
>> generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to
>> answer, you should just say so.
>>
>>> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried).
>>> What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult
>>> decisions indeed did have to be made.
>> Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an
>> "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry
>> that label.
>>
>>> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's
>>> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from
>>> a range of perspectives.
>> 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of
>> perspectives'  :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything,
>> just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show
>> how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more
>> below...
>>
>>
>>> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two
>>> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.
>> Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus
>> plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of
>> perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts
>> all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a
>> meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.
>>
>>> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people
>>> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we
>>> were not able to offer funding.
>> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the
>> decisions.
>>
>>> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.
>> But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard
>> about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this
>> even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting
>> my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we
>> invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not
>> revealing why you could not - which I now gather was  bec you had this
>> Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates
>> were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not
>> understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being
>> another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements,
>> which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to
>> a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self
>> funded (although I could not have)  if they knew about this meeting...
>> But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN
>> process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of
>> 10 days)...
>>
>>
>>> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the
>>> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to
>>> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full
>>> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still
>>> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring
>>> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing
>>> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first
>>> in our region for a meeting of this kind.
>> I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS
>> process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases...
>>
>>> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is
>>> of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day
>>> one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that
>>> they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources
>>> to attend this event and contribute to its success.
>> But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist,
>> so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members
>> especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including
>> developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource
>> page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of
>> contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs,
>> chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition.
>> This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of
>> perspectives'.
>>
>> (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been
>> added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till
>> yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it
>> wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC
>> contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till
>> yesterday?  )
>>> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are
>>> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well,
>> They have worked in this area for quite some time..
>>
>>> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum
>>> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to
>>> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
>>> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the
>>> message about this event to them though. If any representative of
>>> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely,
>>> they are very welcome to do so, as are you.
>> Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the
>> real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and
>> transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...
>>
>>> Hope this clarifies.
>> My apologies, but it doesnt.
>>
>> Best, parminder
>>> Regards,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10
>>>     Review,
>>>
>>>     *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know
>>>     this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and
>>>     completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by
>>>     some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance
>>>     of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for
>>>     me to get into this thing....
>>>
>>>     This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian
>>>     Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process,
>>>     and so some questions arise in my mind:
>>>
>>>     (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>>>
>>>     (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations
>>>     sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my
>>>     view, would be a consultation)
>>>
>>>     (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
>>>     by whom, and who decided it..
>>>
>>>     Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
>>>
>>>     I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that
>>>     no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for
>>>     Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been
>>>     engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly
>>>     engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO
>>>     Engagement Mechanism <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which
>>>     describes itself as
>>>
>>>         "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
>>>         cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all
>>>         sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental
>>>         processes in regional and global level. The platform is
>>>         initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up
>>>         under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN
>>>         agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other
>>>         development related issues/processes. "
>>>
>>>     In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency
>>>     which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a
>>>     member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net
>>>     Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the
>>>     Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in
>>>     Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or
>>>     the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia
>>>     Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group
>>>     would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and
>>>     so my questions..
>>>
>>>
>>>     parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>     Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>     The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the
>>>>     Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners
>>>>     Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional
>>>>     Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in
>>>>     Pattaya, Thailand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring
>>>>     together experts from different backgrounds and from around the
>>>>     Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs,
>>>>     sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to
>>>>     ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely
>>>>     address in the process of the review?
>>>>     *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on
>>>>     the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators
>>>>     of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can
>>>>     be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group
>>>>     will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian
>>>>     region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work
>>>>     together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper
>>>>     (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will
>>>>     be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft).
>>>>     The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs
>>>>     could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure
>>>>     that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board
>>>>     in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other
>>>>     processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into,
>>>>     these might be taken into consideration as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting
>>>>     that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next
>>>>     input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be
>>>>     drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a
>>>>     wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of
>>>>     professional expertise and geographical location. What unites
>>>>     all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet
>>>>     and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human
>>>>     rights of all in our region.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will
>>>>     be available. *For more information on remote participation and
>>>>     the event in general, please see the event website
>>>>     <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me
>>>>     know if you have any comments or questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Warm regards,
>>>>
>>>>     Anja
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>>     The Internet Democracy Project
>>>>
>>>>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/c871a56b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 10 02:59:42 2015
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:59:42 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices
 from the Asia-Pacific Region
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKhc_feVHPRGnO50LGWq66Dut0BPtCbMGpqA=D+0Qkde-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKhc_feVHPRGnO50LGWq66Dut0BPtCbMGpqA=D+0Qkde-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <132276918.280790.1441868382047.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Yes, I was also thinking that how it would be difficult for either making real-time discussion [in which one have to be remain an active listener to others speaker and respond to what other have spoke] and documenting the notes at same time. I thing everyone was noting the abstract of his/er own discussion once have spoken. Notes taking would also have been interactive and could be further collaborative if the group members also take part as a reviewer and editor as third person, so if person A has missed some sentences, person C or D could complete or correct it.
By the way how the final message (Final-Pattaya-Key-Messages-2015.pdf) was developed? is it developed in the same way live contribution and interaction or only few people finalized the summary document?
Thanks and Regards
Imran
 
      From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
 To: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> 
Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
 Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2015, 11:25
 Subject: Re: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region
   
Thanks Imran,
yes, making real-time discussion and document at the same time was a very challenging, but also rewarding experiment - everyone was able to participate in the discussion, could see the other groups work in progress during the break-out Working Group sessions in real time, etc, etc.
Instead of chatting or tweeting, all are documented in a single file, or linked file, so that we became much more structured and logical, could stay more focused.
Making a poll in the middle of sessions was also quite effective, putting photos were fun and added more color.
Worth to continue this kind of experience.
izumi
2015-09-10 14:57 GMT+09:00 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:



Thanks Izumi for sharing the discussion document of Interactive and Interesting Sessions.
Regards
Imran
 
      From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
 To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
 Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2015, 8:01
 Subject: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region
   
Hi, (Sorry for multi-posting),
Some 38 people had a 3-day meeting in Pattaya on the WSIS+10 review and produced the following "Key Messages".
Having seen no post [yet], I am tempted to share the link here as one of the participants of the meeting.
http://www.wsis10.asia/

It was an interesting exercise, and most of the process of the discussions are documented here.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPU7Vv4W6hcRtOopMxXn6H_2e3LUiN4ckLdVv3FPQoQ/edit

By using Google Doc, we were making and sharing realtime notes during the meeting, was very productive to make it an inclusive meeting in my view.
Many thanks to the organizers!
izumi




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

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

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


   
 



-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,          
Japan
www.anr.org

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

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

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


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/b3ab6353/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in  Thu Sep 10 03:12:38 2015
From: gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in (Gangesh S. Varma Varma)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:42:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] CCG NLU Delhi's Comments on the ICG IANA Transition
 Proposal
Message-ID: <CAEKkfMv8+w62KwN23978Ces9WbUeB_D5eCYf4Dpyq7oxQ4axDA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Please find attached Comments from the Centre for Communication Governance,
National Law University Delhi on the IANA Transition Proposal. We have
highlighted few of the gaps in the proposal particularly with reference to
root zone management, absence of articulating the 'global public interest'
mandate in the new PTI context and the lack of clarity on contracting
between the ICANN, PTI and Communities.

We would be grateful for your comments/feedback/suggestions.

Thanks and regards

Gangesh

-- 
Gangesh Sreekumar Varma
Senior Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance
National Law University Delhi
Dwarka Sector 14
New Delhi
Mobile: +91 8447159123
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/162aaa67/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: (CCG- NLUD) Comments to ICG Proposal.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 234714 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/162aaa67/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 iza at anr.org  Thu Sep 10 04:12:26 2015
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:12:26 +0900
Subject: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices
 from the Asia-Pacific Region
In-Reply-To: <CAAo0AXvWw-1-PtJY5LmheTtpS5m07+90YXFbaNyXkddQmoVvuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKinvx9nC8w2YmGbsBrCCnTheHt5aWUyz=y3Aezfi6mmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <783726763.275907.1441864677672.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CA+YNoKhc_feVHPRGnO50LGWq66Dut0BPtCbMGpqA=D+0Qkde-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAAo0AXvWw-1-PtJY5LmheTtpS5m07+90YXFbaNyXkddQmoVvuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKhC2TC1OVdUxiWKaVqQ48MvfY=jNazvVcoG9=JdTXV46Q@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, the outcome doc is already posited here, as my first message showed
you.

http://www.wsis10.asia/


izumi

2015-09-10 15:36 GMT+09:00 Arun Mohan Sukumar <arunmohan.s at gmail.com>:

> Izumi, thanks for posting this - has the draft outcome doc from the
> consultation been published? I may have missed it, apologies if it's
> already been put out.
>
> Best,
> Arun
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/fbb3d643/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Thu Sep 10 04:22:30 2015
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:22:30 +0900
Subject: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices
 from the Asia-Pacific Region
In-Reply-To: <132276918.280790.1441868382047.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CA+YNoKhc_feVHPRGnO50LGWq66Dut0BPtCbMGpqA=D+0Qkde-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <132276918.280790.1441868382047.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKhLB1YV1MQMjDiD9stUEwqyksMvYhPrZQsHsbebPhMjDg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,


2015-09-10 15:59 GMT+09:00 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:

> Yes, I was also thinking that how it would be difficult for either making
> real-time discussion [in which one have to be remain an active listener to
> others speaker and respond to what other have spoke] and documenting the
> notes at same time. I thing everyone was noting the abstract of his/er own
> discussion once have spoken. Notes taking would also have been interactive
> and could be further collaborative if the group members also take part as a
> reviewer and editor as third person, so if person A has missed some
> sentences, person C or D could complete or correct it.
>


​Yes, sometimes one first takes the floor and make comments, other one
takes short notes, as much as s/he could, then after finishing the
comments, she or he gets back to the note just taken and corrects and adds
what was said, or intended to say.

This makes more guarantee for accuracy, instead of reading the real-time
scripts on the screen taken by some stenographers, finding some errors but
have no means to correct, at least on the fly.

​


>
> By the way how the final message (Final-Pattaya-Key-Messages-2015.pdf) was
> developed? is it developed in the same way live contribution and
> interaction or only few people finalized the summary document?
>

​It is also documented in the later half of our Collective Notes, but it is
not easy to follow with the current (lack of) editorial works. We should
perhaps have Outline or Executive Summary and Table of Contents linked to
corresponding sections.

We were broken into 6 working groups with each subject, and one rep from
each group was selected to form an drafting group for the final message​,
they worked late into night, presented the draft next morning, round of
sessions on each para and sentences, drafting group met again, finalized
the text, one more round of discussion, online approval.
That was the rough process.

izumi



>
> Thanks and Regards
>
> Imran
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
> *To:* Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "<
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 10 September 2015, 11:25
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review:
> Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region
>
> Thanks Imran,
>
> yes, making real-time discussion and document at the same time was a very
> challenging, but also rewarding experiment - everyone was able to
> participate in the discussion, could see the other groups work in progress
> during the break-out Working Group sessions in real time, etc, etc.
>
> Instead of chatting or tweeting, all are documented in a single file, or
> linked file, so that we became much more structured and logical, could stay
> more focused.
>
> Making a poll in the middle of sessions was also quite effective, putting
> photos were fun and added more color.
>
> Worth to continue this kind of experience.
>
> izumi
>
> 2015-09-10 14:57 GMT+09:00 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
>
>
> Thanks Izumi for sharing the discussion document of Interactive and
> Interesting Sessions.
>
> Regards
>
> Imran
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
> *To:* governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "<
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 10 September 2015, 8:01
> *Subject:* [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review:
> Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region
>
> Hi, (Sorry for multi-posting),
>
> Some 38 people had a 3-day meeting in Pattaya on the WSIS+10 review and
> produced the following "Key Messages".
>
> Having seen no post [yet], I am tempted to share the link here as one of
> the participants of the meeting.
>
> http://www.wsis10.asia/
>
> It was an interesting exercise, and most of the process of the discussions
> are documented here.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPU7Vv4W6hcRtOopMxXn6H_2e3LUiN4ckLdVv3FPQoQ/edit
>
> By using Google Doc, we were making and sharing realtime notes during the
> meeting, was very productive to make it an inclusive meeting in my view.
>
> Many thanks to the organizers!
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/2de048f8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Thu Sep 10 06:06:06 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:06:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <55EFDA0F.4010009@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net>
 <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> <D213B395.504C0%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <55EFDA0F.4010009@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D2177642.5117E%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>

Hi Parminder.

By response, I meant a big-picture response as opposed to replies to the specific questions, which I am not able to answer them as I was not involved in the decisions.

My big picture response is based on my previous experience with you re the first few APrIGFs.

I note that APC has responded since your email and you have called it exemplary. I take it that you are satisfied.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Wednesday, 9 September 2015 3:04 pm
To: Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available

On Monday 07 September 2015 09:21 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
Hi Parminder.

I wanted to understand the picture better before writing a response. As I have gone and returned from the Consultation at Pattaya, I feel more able to respond.

Dear Peng Hwa,

I read your email several times, because you call it a response to my email, but I still could not see the response. As you will see from the trailing emails, I deliberately sent two different emails raising two sets of issues - one set more important, primary, and substantively clear and precise, and the other kind of subsidiary, although also quite important. I requested that the first set be addressed separately so that there is no loss of focus from the primary set of the most important and, to repeat, precise and clear issues of transparency and accountability. I repeat them;

(1) who is funding this 'consultation'

(2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my view, would be a consultation)

(3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and by whom, and who decided it..

(Let me also stress the issue of it being a 'consultation' and an 'Asia Pacific consultation' at that which greatly increases the salience of the above points.)

The only response I can understand to this request is either to agree that these questions of transparency and accountability are important, and add your voice to them, or disagree and hold them to be not important or necessary. I really am not able to see from your email which of the two possible responses are you indicating. I will request you to clarify this . Thanks.

Fwiw, the outcome document is available at http://wsis10.asia/index.php/outcomes.

Yes, I saw it. Notably, it says " Accountability and transparency must also be applied to other stakeholder groups, including but not limited to the private sector..." and "Transparent and accountable procedural rules that empower marginalised voices and those who lack technical expertise need to be developed."

!!??

I want to be very respectful to those who evolved this document, but seriously, I am fully confounded.... Can one get away by saying and claiming anything, while publicly acting in quite the opposite manner (this is with regard to the organisers), that too in the civil society space that is supposed to be the morality holder of the society. Maybe you have some comments on this.

Best regards
parminder


Your questions remind me of a similar set of criteria you asked of me re the APrIGF when we held the meeting first in HK and then Singapore. So it’s with that sense of deja vu that I’m writing this email.

I will not go into the details of your questions. (One long reply can only beget another.) Instead, I will focus on what I consider to be the larger issues.

1. I think that such bottom-up initiatives should be encouraged.
It is a lot of work to get going a meeting that attempts to represent AP views. In this consultation, there were forces working against it happening, because of fears that the group might raise sensitive issues. (I hope it did.) You probably mean well but some cheerleading with some gentle nudges (instead of harrumphs) should the group stray would be more encouraging to current and future initiatives.

2. There is a tension between legitimacy and efficacy.
They are not in total contradiction because a non-legitimate outcome will likely not be efficacious. But I hope you can see how trying to cross all the “T"s and dotting the “I"s may mean not moving forward in such situations. For example Edmon and I were so enthused about getting the APrIGF going so that there would be some form of feedback from Asia-Pac to the IGF in 2010 that it took us two years for the APrIGF MSG (a culturally appropriate term) to have me elected as Chair. Before that, as Edmon was leading the event in HK, he chaired the meetings that year; and when I did Singapore, I chaired the meetings for that year. There was sufficient buy-in from the AP organisations in our nascent stage that the APrIGF was able to move forward.

3. So how does one recognise legitimacy?
I don’t see one size fitting all. It is a mix of process and outcome, of being open and inclusive and being transparent in processes and outcomes. But also in achieving at least a reasonable outcome. The ultimate test is acceptance by the Internet community. In the present case, the acceptance of the Pattaya key messages. (Google obviously has questions about legitimacy; it asks, "Did you mean: pattaya massages?”)

4. In the interest of transparency, I declare that the organisers paid for my budget airline ticket from Singapore to Bangkok, the transfers to and from Bangkok airport and the stay in Pattaya. The transfers in Singapore, the tips to the drivers and tips to the staff who serviced my hotel room were paid by me.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>> on behalf of Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Wednesday, 2 September 2015 3:01 pm
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available

Hi Anja

There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained, public interest information about what is supposed to be a public interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now.

The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part of category 1 above.)

I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may not get diluted. So please provide me separately the fully objective information under category 1 sought in my earlier email  .

Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....


On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Hi Parminder,

I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.

Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know, the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process. Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York - something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't guaranteed at all.

Sure... I note the term 'amplify voices' and the neutrality of the platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website<http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices')


The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.

Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to answer, you should just say so.

No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried). What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult decisions indeed did have to be made.

Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry that label.

What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from a range of perspectives.

'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of perspectives'  :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything, just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more below...


A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.

Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.


As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we were not able to offer funding.

Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the decisions.

Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.

But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not revealing why you could not - which I now gather was  bec you had this Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements, which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self funded (although I could not have)  if they knew about this meeting... But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of 10 days)...


In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full modalities of how this will work is something that we are still working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first in our region for a meeting of this kind.

I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases...


Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources to attend this event and contribute to its success.

But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist, so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs, chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition. This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of perspectives'.

(Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but it wasnt there till yesterday, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till yesterday?  )

On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well,

They have worked in this area for quite some time..

and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the message about this event to them though. If any representative of APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely, they are very welcome to do so, as are you.

Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...


Hope this clarifies.

My apologies, but it doesnt.

Best, parminder

Regards,
Anja




On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
Dear organisers of the Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review,

With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for me to get into this thing....

This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process, and so some questions arise in my mind:

(1) who is funding this 'consultation'

(2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my view, would be a consultation)

(3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and by whom, and who decided it..

Thanks for answering these public interest questions...

I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO Engagement Mechanism<http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which describes itself as

"APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental processes in regional and global level. The platform is initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other development related issues/processes. "
In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and so my questions..


parminder


On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Dear all,

The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review from 3 to 5 September in Pattaya, Thailand.

The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring together experts from different backgrounds and from around the Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs, sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to ask: what are the issues that our governments need to squarely address in the process of the review?

The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July). The group will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into, these might be taken into consideration as well.

The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next input round on the Review outcome document. Participants will be drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of professional expertise and geographical location. What unites all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human rights of all in our region.

We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will be available. For more information on remote participation and the event in general, please see the event website<http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.

We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me know if you have any comments or questions.

Warm regards,
Anja


--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

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



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


____________________________________________________________
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



--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

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



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/5bd0a5b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Sep 10 07:35:33 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:05:33 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <D2177642.5117E%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com> <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com> <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> <D213B395.504C0%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <55EFDA0F.4010009@itforchange.net> <D2177642.5117E%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <55F16B05.5020403@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 10 September 2015 03:36 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Hi Parminder.
>
> By response, I meant a big-picture response as opposed to replies to
> the specific questions, which I am not able to answer them as I was
> not involved in the decisions.
>
> My big picture response is based on my previous experience with you re
> the first few APrIGFs.
>
> I note that APC has responded since your email and you have called it
> exemplary. I take it that you are satisfied.

Dear Peng Hwa, my degree of satisfaction or otherwise with regard to my
transparency questions is clearly indicated in my email that you refer
to... Best, parmidner
>
> Regards, 
> Peng Hwa
>
> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, 9 September 2015 3:04 pm
> To: Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>,
> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
> Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian
> Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation
> available
>
> On Monday 07 September 2015 09:21 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>> Hi Parminder.
>>
>> I wanted to understand the picture better before writing a response.
>> As I have gone and returned from the Consultation at Pattaya, I feel
>> more able to respond.
>
> Dear Peng Hwa,
>
> I read your email several times, because you call it a response to my
> email, but I still could not see the response. As you will see from
> the trailing emails, I deliberately sent two different emails raising
> two sets of issues - one set more important, primary, and
> substantively clear and precise, and the other kind of subsidiary,
> although also quite important. I requested that the first set be
> addressed separately so that there is no loss of focus from the
> primary set of the most important and, to repeat, precise and clear
> issues of transparency and accountability. I repeat them;
>
> (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>
> (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations
> sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my
> view, would be a consultation)
>
> (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and by
> whom, and who decided it..
>
> (Let me also stress the issue of it being a 'consultation' and an
> 'Asia Pacific consultation' at that which greatly increases the
> salience of the above points.)
>
> The only response I can understand to this request is either to agree
> that these questions of transparency and accountability are important,
> and add your voice to them, or disagree and hold them to be not
> important or necessary. I really am not able to see from your email
> which of the two possible responses are you indicating. I will request
> you to clarify this . Thanks.
>
>> Fwiw, the outcome document is available
>> at http://wsis10.asia/index.php/outcomes.
>
> Yes, I saw it. Notably, it says " Accountability and transparency must
> also be applied to other stakeholder groups, including but not limited
> to the private sector..." and "Transparent and accountable procedural
> rules that empower marginalised voices and those who lack technical
> expertise need to be developed."
>
> !!??
>
> I want to be very respectful to those who evolved this document, but
> seriously, I am fully confounded.... Can one get away by saying and
> claiming anything, while publicly acting in quite the opposite manner
> (this is with regard to the organisers), that too in the civil society
> space that is supposed to be the morality holder of the society. Maybe
> you have some comments on this.
>
> Best regards
> parminder
>
>>
>> Your questions remind me of a similar set of criteria you asked of me
>> re the APrIGF when we held the meeting first in HK and then
>> Singapore. So it’s with that sense of deja vu that I’m writing this
>> email.
>>
>> I will not go into the details of your questions. (One long reply can
>> only beget another.) Instead, I will focus on what I consider to be
>> the larger issues.
>>
>> 1. I think that such bottom-up initiatives should be encouraged.
>> It is a lot of work to get going a meeting that attempts to represent
>> AP views. In this consultation, there were forces working against it
>> happening, because of fears that the group might raise sensitive
>> issues. (I hope it did.) You probably mean well but some cheerleading
>> with some gentle nudges (instead of harrumphs) should the group stray
>> would be more encouraging to current and future initiatives.
>>
>> 2. There is a tension between legitimacy and efficacy. 
>> They are not in total contradiction because a non-legitimate outcome
>> will likely not be efficacious. But I hope you can see how trying to
>> cross all the “T"s and dotting the “I"s may mean not moving forward
>> in such situations. For example Edmon and I were so enthused about
>> getting the APrIGF going so that there would be some form of feedback
>> from Asia-Pac to the IGF in 2010 that it took us two years for the
>> APrIGF MSG (a culturally appropriate term) to have me elected as
>> Chair. Before that, as Edmon was leading the event in HK, he chaired
>> the meetings that year; and when I did Singapore, I chaired the
>> meetings for that year. There was sufficient buy-in from the AP
>> organisations in our nascent stage that the APrIGF was able to move
>> forward. 
>>
>> 3. So how does one recognise legitimacy?
>> I don’t see one size fitting all. It is a mix of process and outcome,
>> of being open and inclusive and being transparent in processes and
>> outcomes. But also in achieving at least a reasonable outcome. The
>> ultimate test is acceptance by the Internet community. In the present
>> case, the acceptance of the Pattaya key messages. (Google obviously
>> has questions about legitimacy; it asks, "Did you mean: pattaya
>> massages?”)
>>
>> 4. In the interest of transparency, I declare that the organisers
>> paid for my budget airline ticket from Singapore to Bangkok, the
>> transfers to and from Bangkok airport and the stay in Pattaya. The
>> transfers in Singapore, the tips to the drivers and tips to the staff
>> who serviced my hotel room were paid by me. 
>>
>> Regards, 
>> Peng Hwa
>>
>> From: <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>> on behalf of
>> Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
>> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Date: Wednesday, 2 September 2015 3:01 pm
>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
>> Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in
>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian
>> Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation
>> available
>>
>> Hi Anja
>>
>> There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I
>> call as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self
>> contained, public interest information about what is supposed to be a
>> public interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I
>> sent just now.
>>
>> The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level
>> issue because it involves judgements, and judgements about
>> judgements, about who was invited, who was funded, who was informed
>> in time enough to consider participating, and so on....( In fact,
>> this part is also greatly helped by a full declaration of the
>> decision process, the group involved in making the judgements, and so
>> on, which basic info is part of category 1 above.)
>>
>> I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity
>> of category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives
>> involved, may not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe
>> fully objective information under category 1 sought in my earlier
>> email  .
>>
>> Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental
>> issues that are involved, which while being not fully objective are
>> still a worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>
>>> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person
>>> who first came up with this idea and also the one to send the
>>> message to which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.
>>>
>>> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all
>>> know, the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led
>>> process. Also, details on the way in which the informal
>>> consultations with other stakeholders would be facilitated remained
>>> extremely scanty even eight months before the review was supposed to
>>> take place. Even when the Review process was formally announced, it
>>> wasn't clear to what extent inputs from stakeholders other than
>>> governments would be taken into account. This meeting is an attempt
>>> to be proactive in that situation, trying to amplify voices from our
>>> region to make sure that concerns from this region actually find
>>> resonance in New York - something that, seeing how far removed we
>>> are from there, isn't guaranteed at all.
>>
>> Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the
>> platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your
>> responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website
>> <http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> carries this blurb "Amplifying
>> Asian Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important
>> public interest question about who determines and filters what are
>> 'Asian Voices')
>>
>>>
>>> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are
>>> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were
>>> willing to put part of their organisational budgets, of their
>>> staff's time and minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.
>>
>> Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not
>> generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse
>> to answer, you should just say so.
>>
>>> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I
>>> tried). What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and
>>> difficult decisions indeed did have to be made.
>>
>> Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all
>> an "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also
>> carry that label.
>>
>>> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across
>>> Asia's sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of
>>> issues from a range of perspectives.
>>
>> 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of
>> perspectives'  :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write
>> anything, just because it sounds good and is of a general nature....
>> Can you show how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective,
>> about which more below...
>>
>>
>>> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past
>>> two years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.
>>
>> Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big
>> plus plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range
>> of perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with
>> facts all the good and general things you are writing here if we are
>> to have a meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.
>>
>>>
>>> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people
>>> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we
>>> were not able to offer funding.
>>
>> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the
>> decisions.
>>
>>> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.
>>
>> But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first
>> heard about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below
>> -- this even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact
>> a meeting my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept
>> to which we invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that
>> stage not revealing why you could not - which I now gather was  bec
>> you had this Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting
>> plans and dates were clearly kept under wraps till the very last
>> minute - so I do not understand this 'self funding' business
>> either.... Other than it being another link in the long chain of
>> general, good sounding, statements, which are not very well founded
>> on facts, and thus do not contribute to a serious and useful
>> discussion. Maybe some people could have self funded (although I
>> could not have)  if they knew about this meeting... But the problem
>> is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN process is
>> being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of 10 days)...
>>
>>
>>> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the
>>> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as
>>> to allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full
>>> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still
>>> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring
>>> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are
>>> doing our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is
>>> a first in our region for a meeting of this kind.
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original
>> WSIS process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both
>> its phases...
>>
>>>
>>> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited
>>> is of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from
>>> day one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very
>>> happy that they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their
>>> own resources to attend this event and contribute to its success.
>>
>> But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition
>> elist, so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC
>> members especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement
>> including developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me -
>> the resource page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a
>> number of contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of
>> non-NGOs, chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net
>> Coalition. This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and
>> 'range of perspectives'.
>>
>> (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been
>> added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till
>> yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it
>> wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC
>> contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till
>> yesterday?  )
>>>
>>> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are
>>> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as
>>> well,
>>
>> They have worked in this area for quite some time..
>>
>>> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum
>>> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated
>>> to discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
>>> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the
>>> message about this event to them though. If any representative of
>>> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or
>>> remotely, they are very welcome to do so, as are you.
>>
>> Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again,
>> the real issues here are structural ones around civil society
>> processes and transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...
>>
>>>
>>> Hope this clarifies.
>>
>> My apologies, but it doesnt.
>>
>> Best, parminder
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the
>>>     WIS+10 Review,
>>>
>>>     *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know
>>>     this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and
>>>     completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions
>>>     by some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in
>>>     pursuance of my public interest work, however distasteful it may
>>>     be even for me to get into this thing....
>>>
>>>     This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian
>>>     Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process,
>>>     and so some questions arise in my mind:
>>>
>>>     (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>>>
>>>     (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and
>>>     invitations sent, and by whom - were all concerned people
>>>     invited (that, in my view, would be a consultation)
>>>
>>>     (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
>>>     by whom, and who decided it..
>>>
>>>     Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
>>>
>>>     I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge
>>>     that no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT
>>>     for Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has
>>>     been engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very
>>>     thoroughly engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific
>>>     Regional CSO Engagement Mechanism
>>>     <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which describes itself as
>>>
>>>         "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
>>>         cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of
>>>         all sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in
>>>         intergovernmental processes in regional and global level.
>>>         The platform is initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and
>>>         has been set up under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to
>>>         engage with UN agencies and Member States on the Post-2015
>>>         as well as other development related issues/processes. "
>>>
>>>     In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology
>>>     Constituency which works as an active network (of which IT for
>>>     Change is a member) which has begun to work closely with the
>>>     Just Net Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and
>>>     the Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest
>>>     in Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this
>>>     network, or the network as a whole, has been involved in this
>>>     so-called "Asia Regional Consultation' which being on a UN
>>>     process this group would be natural constituency... All of which
>>>     makes me wonder, and so my questions..
>>>
>>>
>>>     parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>     Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>     The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the
>>>>     Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global
>>>>     Partners Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an
>>>>     *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5
>>>>     September in Pattaya, Thailand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will
>>>>     bring together experts from different backgrounds and from
>>>>     around the Asian region who are concerned about issues
>>>>     concerning ICTs, sustainable development, human rights and
>>>>     Internet governance, to ask: *what are the issues that our
>>>>     governments need to squarely address in the process of the review?
>>>>     *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment
>>>>     on the non-paper that will have been released by the
>>>>     co-facilitators of the review process in late August (inputs
>>>>     into that paper can be made by all stakeholders and are due on
>>>>     31 July).The group will take stock of the extent to which
>>>>     priorities for the Asian region have been reflected in the
>>>>     non-paper, and will work together on formulating a joint
>>>>     comment on the non-paper (comments on the non-paper will be due
>>>>     in mid-September, and will be drawn on by the co-facilitators
>>>>     to formulate a zero-draft). The group will also look forward to
>>>>     consider which further inputs could be made or actions could be
>>>>     taken strategically to ensure that priorities from the Asian
>>>>     region are fully taken onto board in the final WSIS+10 Review
>>>>     outcome documents. If there are other processes the group
>>>>     believes this work could usefully feed into, these might be
>>>>     taken into consideration as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working
>>>>     meeting that is geared towards producing a joint submission to
>>>>     the next input round on the Review outcome document.
>>>>     *Participants will be drawn from all non-government stakeholder
>>>>     groups, and will have a wide and rich variety of backgrounds,
>>>>     both in terms of professional expertise and geographical
>>>>     location. What unites all, however, is a shared commitment to a
>>>>     free and open Internet and to the use of technology to benefit
>>>>     the development and human rights of all in our region.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation
>>>>     will be available. *For more information on remote
>>>>     participation and the event in general, please see the event
>>>>     website <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter
>>>>     @WSISAsia #wsis10.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let
>>>>     me know if you have any comments or questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Warm regards,
>>>>
>>>>     Anja
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>>     The Internet Democracy Project
>>>>
>>>>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s)
>> named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use,
>> or disclose its contents.
>> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/dbc79e2c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 10 08:10:29 2015
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:10:29 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices
 from the Asia-Pacific Region
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKhLB1YV1MQMjDiD9stUEwqyksMvYhPrZQsHsbebPhMjDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKhLB1YV1MQMjDiD9stUEwqyksMvYhPrZQsHsbebPhMjDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1638083461.417001.1441887029059.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi,Thanks for detail, I liked it and decided to adopt the same way in our up-coming meeting/events.
Thanks and Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah
 
      From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
 To: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> 
Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
 Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2015, 13:22
 Subject: Re: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region
   
Hi,

2015-09-10 15:59 GMT+09:00 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:

Yes, I was also thinking that how it would be difficult for either making real-time discussion [in which one have to be remain an active listener to others speaker and respond to what other have spoke] and documenting the notes at same time. I thing everyone was noting the abstract of his/er own discussion once have spoken. Notes taking would also have been interactive and could be further collaborative if the group members also take part as a reviewer and editor as third person, so if person A has missed some sentences, person C or D could complete or correct it.


​Yes, sometimes one first takes the floor and make comments, other one takes short notes, as much as s/he could, then after finishing the comments, she or he gets back to the note just taken and corrects and adds what was said, or intended to say.
This makes more guarantee for accuracy, instead of reading the real-time scripts on the screen taken by some stenographers, finding some errors but have no means to correct, at least on the fly.
​ 

By the way how the final message (Final-Pattaya-Key-Messages-2015.pdf) was developed? is it developed in the same way live contribution and interaction or only few people finalized the summary document?

​It is also documented in the later half of our Collective Notes, but it is not easy to follow with the current (lack of) editorial works. We should perhaps have Outline or Executive Summary and Table of Contents linked to corresponding sections.
We were broken into 6 working groups with each subject, and one rep from each group was selected to form an drafting group for the final message​, they worked late into night, presented the draft next morning, round of sessions on each para and sentences, drafting group met again, finalized the text, one more round of discussion, online approval.That was the rough process.
izumi
 

Thanks and Regards
Imran
 
      From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
 To: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> 
Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
 Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2015, 11:25
 Subject: Re: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region
   
Thanks Imran,
yes, making real-time discussion and document at the same time was a very challenging, but also rewarding experiment - everyone was able to participate in the discussion, could see the other groups work in progress during the break-out Working Group sessions in real time, etc, etc.
Instead of chatting or tweeting, all are documented in a single file, or linked file, so that we became much more structured and logical, could stay more focused.
Making a poll in the middle of sessions was also quite effective, putting photos were fun and added more color.
Worth to continue this kind of experience.
izumi
2015-09-10 14:57 GMT+09:00 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:



Thanks Izumi for sharing the discussion document of Interactive and Interesting Sessions.
Regards
Imran
 
      From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
 To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
 Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2015, 8:01
 Subject: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region
   
Hi, (Sorry for multi-posting),
Some 38 people had a 3-day meeting in Pattaya on the WSIS+10 review and produced the following "Key Messages".
Having seen no post [yet], I am tempted to share the link here as one of the participants of the meeting.
http://www.wsis10.asia/

It was an interesting exercise, and most of the process of the discussions are documented here.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPU7Vv4W6hcRtOopMxXn6H_2e3LUiN4ckLdVv3FPQoQ/edit

By using Google Doc, we were making and sharing realtime notes during the meeting, was very productive to make it an inclusive meeting in my view.
Many thanks to the organizers!
izumi




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

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

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


   
 



-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,          
Japan
www.anr.org



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

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

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


   
 



-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,          
Japan
www.anr.org

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

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

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


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/5f82a0a0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu Sep 10 11:12:26 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:12:26 -0300
Subject: [governance] CCG-NLU Delhi's Comments on the ICG IANA
 Transition Proposal
In-Reply-To: <CAEKkfMt2J9FLPPTTixmhN-x+LzcxaqCyyfmnARpD+wfOONSKVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEKkfMt2J9FLPPTTixmhN-x+LzcxaqCyyfmnARpD+wfOONSKVw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55F19DDA.3090202@riseup.net>


Dear Gangesh,

i tried to read the text completely. But it was not possible. I do not 
understand, why you does not develop your own ideas for a real Internet? 
Why are you oriented as slaves to the rulers?

If we want to create a real Internet, then we do not need these 
organizations. They are all unnecessary. And that is why the attempt to 
deal with them is unnecessary, too.

many greetings, willi
Recife, Brasil


Am 10/09/2015 um 04:09 schrieb Gangesh S. Varma Varma:
> Dear All,
>
> Please find attached Comments from the Centre for Communication Governance,
> National Law University Delhi on the IANA Transition Proposal. We have
> highlighted few of the gaps in the proposal particularly with reference to
> root zone management, absence of articulating the 'global public interest'
> mandate in the new PTI context and the lack of clarity on contracting
> between the ICANN, PTI and Communities.
>
> We would be grateful for your comments/feedback/suggestions.
>
> Thanks and regards
>
> Gangesh



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

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

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

From shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Thu Sep 10 23:13:48 2015
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:13:48 +0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <55F12713.909@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net>
 <CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> <55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org>
 <55F12713.909@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <55F246EC.1000708@bytesforall.pk>

Dear Parminder,

We understand the urgency of your emails but really sorry that we could
not respond earlier as were first busy with the logistics of the
consultation and then in transit for another duty travel.

As you very well know that in our part of the world, the kind of
political environment we work in, we have to be very transparent and
accountable in our income and expenditure and all kinds of people ask
similar questions so very happy to furnish this information to you too.

Bytes for All and ICT Watch had a joint pot of funds from our ongoing
Internet Freedom Program. Both the organizations agreed to invest in the
consultation so drew on this funding and there were 19 people funded by
these funds. Some of them were fully funded, those who could partially
contribute we provided either travel or accommodation, some were
supported only for the conference package. No funds were raised
specifically for this consultation though.

In addition, Bytes for All and its partners also used some travel funds
from another regional project called APC-IMPACT with project partners in
India, Pakistan and Malaysia.

We still needed more money to make this important consultation happen so
Bytes for All contributed a bit more money from our organizational
funds, which we keep for different emergency activities.

Best wishes and regards

Shahzad





On 9/10/15 11:45 AM, parminder wrote:
> Dear Valeria and Chat,
>
> Thanks for the below. Yours disclosures are exemplary. I hope others
> follow the example.
>
> I think that it is best to just declare full details - esp funding and
> decision making processes - of such meetings by the organisers. And I
> keep repeating, particularly bec this meeting was called  Asia Pacific
> Consultation ...
>
> parminder
>
> On Thursday 10 September 2015 08:54 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>> Dear Parminder,
>>
>> I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who
>> is not subscribed to these lists.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Valeria
>> ----
>>
>> APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which
>> helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively
>> participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as
>> the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive
>> than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance
>> processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil
>> society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and
>> informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up
>> opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin
>> America, Africa and Asia.
>>
>> In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed
>> the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia
>> in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in
>> funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified
>> participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can
>> contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget
>> to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where
>> this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from
>> Sida, DGIS and EIDHR.
>>
>> >From the onset, the organisers were aware that we could only bring a
>> limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of
>> all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was
>> expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe
>> that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome
>> document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the
>> various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was
>> meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make
>> submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level
>> meeting in December.
>>
>> For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see:
>> https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Chat
>>
>> On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote:
>>> Hi Anja
>>>
>>> There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call
>>> as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained,
>>> public interest information about what is supposed to be a public
>>> interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now.
>>>
>>> The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue
>>> because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about
>>> who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to
>>> consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also
>>> greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group
>>> involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part
>>> of category 1 above.)
>>>
>>> I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of
>>> category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may
>>> not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective
>>> information under category 1 sought in my earlier email  .
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues
>>> that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a
>>> worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>>
>>>> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who
>>>> first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to
>>>> which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know,
>>>> the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process.
>>>> Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with
>>>> other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even
>>>> eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when
>>>> the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what
>>>> extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken
>>>> into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that
>>>> situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that
>>>> concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York -
>>>> something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't
>>>> guaranteed at all.
>>> Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the
>>> platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your
>>> responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website
>>> <http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian
>>> Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public
>>> interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices')
>>>
>>>> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are
>>>> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing
>>>> to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and
>>>> minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.
>>> Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not
>>> generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to
>>> answer, you should just say so.
>>>
>>>> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried).
>>>> What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult
>>>> decisions indeed did have to be made.
>>> Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an
>>> "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry
>>> that label.
>>>
>>>> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's
>>>> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from
>>>> a range of perspectives.
>>> 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of
>>> perspectives'  :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything,
>>> just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show
>>> how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more
>>> below...
>>>
>>>
>>>> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two
>>>> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.
>>> Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus
>>> plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of
>>> perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts
>>> all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a
>>> meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.
>>>
>>>> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people
>>>> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we
>>>> were not able to offer funding.
>>> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the
>>> decisions.
>>>
>>>> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.
>>> But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard
>>> about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this
>>> even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting
>>> my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we
>>> invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not
>>> revealing why you could not - which I now gather was  bec you had this
>>> Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates
>>> were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not
>>> understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being
>>> another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements,
>>> which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to
>>> a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self
>>> funded (although I could not have)  if they knew about this meeting...
>>> But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN
>>> process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of
>>> 10 days)...
>>>
>>>
>>>> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the
>>>> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to
>>>> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full
>>>> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still
>>>> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring
>>>> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing
>>>> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first
>>>> in our region for a meeting of this kind.
>>> I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS
>>> process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases...
>>>
>>>> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is
>>>> of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day
>>>> one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that
>>>> they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources
>>>> to attend this event and contribute to its success.
>>> But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist,
>>> so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members
>>> especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including
>>> developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource
>>> page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of
>>> contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs,
>>> chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition.
>>> This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of
>>> perspectives'.
>>>
>>> (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been
>>> added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till
>>> yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it
>>> wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC
>>> contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till
>>> yesterday?  )
>>>> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are
>>>> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well,
>>> They have worked in this area for quite some time..
>>>
>>>> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum
>>>> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to
>>>> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
>>>> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the
>>>> message about this event to them though. If any representative of
>>>> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely,
>>>> they are very welcome to do so, as are you.
>>> Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the
>>> real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and
>>> transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...
>>>
>>>> Hope this clarifies.
>>> My apologies, but it doesnt.
>>>
>>> Best, parminder
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Anja
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10
>>>>     Review,
>>>>
>>>>     *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know
>>>>     this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and
>>>>     completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by
>>>>     some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance
>>>>     of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for
>>>>     me to get into this thing....
>>>>
>>>>     This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian
>>>>     Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process,
>>>>     and so some questions arise in my mind:
>>>>
>>>>     (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>>>>
>>>>     (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations
>>>>     sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my
>>>>     view, would be a consultation)
>>>>
>>>>     (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
>>>>     by whom, and who decided it..
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
>>>>
>>>>     I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that
>>>>     no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for
>>>>     Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been
>>>>     engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly
>>>>     engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO
>>>>     Engagement Mechanism <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which
>>>>     describes itself as
>>>>
>>>>         "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
>>>>         cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all
>>>>         sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental
>>>>         processes in regional and global level. The platform is
>>>>         initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up
>>>>         under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN
>>>>         agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other
>>>>         development related issues/processes. "
>>>>
>>>>     In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency
>>>>     which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a
>>>>     member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net
>>>>     Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the
>>>>     Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in
>>>>     Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or
>>>>     the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia
>>>>     Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group
>>>>     would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and
>>>>     so my questions..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>     Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>>     The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the
>>>>>     Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners
>>>>>     Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional
>>>>>     Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in
>>>>>     Pattaya, Thailand.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring
>>>>>     together experts from different backgrounds and from around the
>>>>>     Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs,
>>>>>     sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to
>>>>>     ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely
>>>>>     address in the process of the review?
>>>>>     *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on
>>>>>     the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators
>>>>>     of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can
>>>>>     be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group
>>>>>     will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian
>>>>>     region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work
>>>>>     together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper
>>>>>     (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will
>>>>>     be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft).
>>>>>     The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs
>>>>>     could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure
>>>>>     that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board
>>>>>     in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other
>>>>>     processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into,
>>>>>     these might be taken into consideration as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting
>>>>>     that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next
>>>>>     input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be
>>>>>     drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a
>>>>>     wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of
>>>>>     professional expertise and geographical location. What unites
>>>>>     all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet
>>>>>     and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human
>>>>>     rights of all in our region.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will
>>>>>     be available. *For more information on remote participation and
>>>>>     the event in general, please see the event website
>>>>>     <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me
>>>>>     know if you have any comments or questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Warm regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Anja
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>>>     The Internet Democracy Project
>>>>>
>>>>>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>>>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>     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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>>
>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To 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:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Shahzad Ahmad
Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall
Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981   Cell. +92 333 5236060

PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150911/864b8d75/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Sep 11 01:49:29 2015
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:19:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <55F246EC.1000708@bytesforall.pk>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net>
	<CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net>
	<55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org>
	<55F12713.909@itforchange.net>
	<55F246EC.1000708@bytesforall.pk>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBZTycSs-hSuXS4LbGDd8V2ZD9D1ZDYGOyhRD8M240Wzg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder and all,

To add to Chat's and Shahzad's emails, the Internet Democracy Project
funded 3 people for this meeting, and covered the flight of a fourth. The
costs we covered included those of Internet Democracy Project staff. The
funding we used from this comes from some work we are doing around the WSIS
together with Global Partners Digital, with support from the UK FCO. The
substantial time investment we made in organising this meeting was covered
by organisational funds.

Just on Parminder's question of whether JNC's contribution was added to the
website's resource page after you wrote your email but wasn't there
earlier: that is indeed correct. Nor were the contributions of Global
Partners - supported by Bytes for All and ICT Watch amongst others - or of
the Regional Internet Registries - supported by APNIC - there until then
(all of whom were co-organisers of the meeting). All of these, and a few
additional ones, including the Just Net Coalition contribution, were added
on the same day.

The Internet Democracy Project has been working intensively on the WSIS+10
Review for the past two and half years. Some of that work is documented
here: http://internetdemocracy.in/issues/the-wsis10-review/, though this
doesn't reflect our intense involvement in the ten month MPP process for
the ITU-coordinated high level meeting in June 2014, including preparation
of a clean draft of the vision part of the outcome document, on the request
of the MPP Chair, Prof. Minkin. Written inputs we made into that process
can be found here:
http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/pages/consolidated-texts.html.

Regards,
Anja



On 11 September 2015 at 08:43, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.pk> wrote:

> Dear Parminder,
>
> We understand the urgency of your emails but really sorry that we could
> not respond earlier as were first busy with the logistics of the
> consultation and then in transit for another duty travel.
>
> As you very well know that in our part of the world, the kind of political
> environment we work in, we have to be very transparent and accountable in
> our income and expenditure and all kinds of people ask similar questions so
> very happy to furnish this information to you too.
>
> Bytes for All and ICT Watch had a joint pot of funds from our ongoing
> Internet Freedom Program. Both the organizations agreed to invest in the
> consultation so drew on this funding and there were 19 people funded by
> these funds. Some of them were fully funded, those who could partially
> contribute we provided either travel or accommodation, some were supported
> only for the conference package. No funds were raised specifically for this
> consultation though.
>
> In addition, Bytes for All and its partners also used some travel funds
> from another regional project called APC-IMPACT with project partners in
> India, Pakistan and Malaysia.
>
> We still needed more money to make this important consultation happen so
> Bytes for All contributed a bit more money from our organizational funds,
> which we keep for different emergency activities.
>
> Best wishes and regards
>
> Shahzad
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/10/15 11:45 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> Dear Valeria and Chat,
>
> Thanks for the below. Yours disclosures are exemplary. I hope others
> follow the example.
>
> I think that it is best to just declare full details - esp funding and
> decision making processes - of such meetings by the organisers. And I
> keep repeating, particularly bec this meeting was called  Asia Pacific
> Consultation ...
>
> parminder
>
> On Thursday 10 September 2015 08:54 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>
> Dear Parminder,
>
> I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who
> is not subscribed to these lists.
>
> Best,
>
> Valeria
> ----
>
> APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which
> helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively
> participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as
> the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive
> than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance
> processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil
> society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and
> informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up
> opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin
> America, Africa and Asia.
>
> In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed
> the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia
> in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in
> funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified
> participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can
> contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget
> to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where
> this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from
> Sida, DGIS and EIDHR.
>
> >From the onset, the organisers were aware that we could only bring a
> limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of
> all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was
> expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe
> that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome
> document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the
> various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was
> meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make
> submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level
> meeting in December.
>
> For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see:https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie
>
> Best,
>
> Chat
>
> On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote:
>
> Hi Anja
>
> There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call
> as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained,
> public interest information about what is supposed to be a public
> interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now.
>
> The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue
> because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about
> who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to
> consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also
> greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group
> involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part
> of category 1 above.)
>
> I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of
> category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may
> not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective
> information under category 1 sought in my earlier email  .
>
> Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues
> that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a
> worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....
>
>
> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
> Hi Parminder,
>
> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who
> first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to
> which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.
>
> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know,
> the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process.
> Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with
> other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even
> eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when
> the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what
> extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken
> into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that
> situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that
> concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York -
> something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't
> guaranteed at all.
>
> Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the
> platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your
> responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website<http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> <http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian
> Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public
> interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices')
>
>
> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are
> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing
> to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and
> minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.
>
> Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not
> generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to
> answer, you should just say so.
>
>
> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried).
> What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult
> decisions indeed did have to be made.
>
> Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an
> "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry
> that label.
>
>
> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's
> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from
> a range of perspectives.
>
> 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of
> perspectives'  :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything,
> just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show
> how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more
> below...
>
>
>
> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two
> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.
>
> Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus
> plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of
> perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts
> all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a
> meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.
>
>
> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people
> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we
> were not able to offer funding.
>
> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the
> decisions.
>
>
> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.
>
> But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard
> about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this
> even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting
> my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we
> invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not
> revealing why you could not - which I now gather was  bec you had this
> Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates
> were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not
> understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being
> another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements,
> which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to
> a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self
> funded (although I could not have)  if they knew about this meeting...
> But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN
> process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of
> 10 days)...
>
>
>
> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the
> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to
> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full
> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still
> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring
> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing
> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first
> in our region for a meeting of this kind.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS
> process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases...
>
>
> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is
> of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day
> one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that
> they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources
> to attend this event and contribute to its success.
>
> But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist,
> so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members
> especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including
> developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource
> page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of
> contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs,
> chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition.
> This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of
> perspectives'.
>
> (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been
> added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till
> yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it
> wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC
> contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till
> yesterday?  )
>
> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are
> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well,
>
> They have worked in this area for quite some time..
>
>
> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum
> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to
> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the
> message about this event to them though. If any representative of
> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely,
> they are very welcome to do so, as are you.
>
> Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the
> real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and
> transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...
>
>
> Hope this clarifies.
>
> My apologies, but it doesnt.
>
> Best, parminder
>
> Regards,
> Anja
>
>
>
>
> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> <parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10
>     Review,
>
>     *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know
>     this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and
>     completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by
>     some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance
>     of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for
>     me to get into this thing....
>
>     This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian
>     Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process,
>     and so some questions arise in my mind:
>
>     (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>
>     (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations
>     sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my
>     view, would be a consultation)
>
>     (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
>     by whom, and who decided it..
>
>     Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
>
>     I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that
>     no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for
>     Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been
>     engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly
>     engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO
>     Engagement Mechanism <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/> <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which
>     describes itself as
>
>         "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
>         cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all
>         sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental
>         processes in regional and global level. The platform is
>         initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up
>         under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN
>         agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other
>         development related issues/processes. "
>
>     In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency
>     which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a
>     member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net
>     Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the
>     Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in
>     Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or
>     the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia
>     Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group
>     would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and
>     so my questions..
>
>
>     parminder
>
>
>     On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the
>     Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners
>     Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional
>     Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in
>     Pattaya, Thailand.
>
>
>     The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring
>     together experts from different backgrounds and from around the
>     Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs,
>     sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to
>     ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely
>     address in the process of the review?
>     *
>
>
>     The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on
>     the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators
>     of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can
>     be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group
>     will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian
>     region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work
>     together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper
>     (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will
>     be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft).
>     The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs
>     could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure
>     that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board
>     in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other
>     processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into,
>     these might be taken into consideration as well.
>
>
>     *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting
>     that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next
>     input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be
>     drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a
>     wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of
>     professional expertise and geographical location. What unites
>     all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet
>     and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human
>     rights of all in our region.
>
>
>     *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will
>     be available. *For more information on remote participation and
>     the event in general, please see the event website
>     <http://www.wsis10.asia/> <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.
>
>
>     We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me
>     know if you have any comments or questions.
>
>
>     Warm regards,
>
>     Anja
>
>
>
>     --
>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>     The Internet Democracy Project
>
>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <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> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacswww.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> --
> Shahzad Ahmad
> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
> IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall
> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
> Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981   Cell. +92 333 5236060
>
> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150911/864a23f8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in  Sat Sep 12 17:17:28 2015
From: aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in (Aarti Bhavana)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 02:47:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] CCG-NLU Delhi's Comments on the Accountability
 Proposal
Message-ID: <CAF0Y8V2VVYJvpDfpe9vWn1r8e1mC_Vqdts6Twqb7=dBvQnhiKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Please find attached the Comments from the Centre for Communication
Governance at National Law University, Delhi. We would appreciate your
comments and suggestions .

Warm regards,
Aarti




Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi |
Sector-14,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91)
11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/>
. www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi <https://twitter.com/CCGDelhi> .
@aartibhavana  <https://twitter.com/aartibhavana>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150913/1d6ee277/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: (CCG-NLUD) Comments on the CCWG - Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal on WS1 Reccomendations.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 222952 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150913/1d6ee277/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Sep 13 07:07:18 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:37:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
 Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBZTycSs-hSuXS4LbGDd8V2ZD9D1ZDYGOyhRD8M240Wzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>	<55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net>	<CAJqNAHB0ZCGEmkrxYVeq1eFs2-dmf6yp20Cn7zSjGipfj31D1A@mail.gmail.com>	<55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net>	<55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org>	<55F12713.909@itforchange.net>	<55F246EC.1000708@bytesforall.pk> <CAJqNAHBZTycSs-hSuXS4LbGDd8V2ZD9D1ZDYGOyhRD8M240Wzg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55F558E6.40203@itforchange.net>

Thanks Shahzad and Anja. This covers a lot of ground. So thanks again.

Apart from these separate declarations by organisers, and not yet all of
them, would it not be so much better if some central party/ group who
held the workshop and would have all the required information provide it
publicly in one go. For instance, apart from participant sponsorship
costs, of which we still only have a partial picture, someone would have
put in a pretty big sum on the venue etc... Thanks.

It is of course more than a bit tiring and embarrassing, knowing how
these transparent demands are resented by many, to keep pressing for
them. I do it because I think that this is the right thing to do for
civil society.

Perhaps it is relevant to note the accent in the US electoral battle on
transparency in campaign financing, with Hillary Clinton now declaring
that if elected she will ensure mandating a much greater transparency
(and the existing protections like coming from the 'Citizens United'
court decision are dismantled).

    "We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is
    distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and
    drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans," Clinton
    said in a statement released to the media.
    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32754-clinton-proposes-campaign-finance-reform-while-raking-in-millions-from-wall-street

If political parties should be accountable for their financing I dont
understand how civil society can be resistant to it. We in fact need to
be many steps ahead. Drowning out voices takes place in many forms, and
all are bad.

parminder

On Friday 11 September 2015 11:19 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Hi Parminder and all,
>
> To add to Chat's and Shahzad's emails, the Internet Democracy Project
> funded 3 people for this meeting, and covered the flight of a fourth.
> The costs we covered included those of Internet Democracy Project
> staff. The funding we used from this comes from some work we are doing
> around the WSIS together with Global Partners Digital, with support
> from the UK FCO. The substantial time investment we made in organising
> this meeting was covered by organisational funds.
>
> Just on Parminder's question of whether JNC's contribution was added
> to the website's resource page after you wrote your email but wasn't
> there earlier: that is indeed correct. Nor were the contributions of
> Global Partners - supported by Bytes for All and ICT Watch amongst
> others - or of the Regional Internet Registries - supported by APNIC -
> there until then (all of whom were co-organisers of the meeting). All
> of these, and a few additional ones, including the Just Net Coalition
> contribution, were added on the same day.
>
> The Internet Democracy Project has been working intensively on the
> WSIS+10 Review for the past two and half years. Some of that work is
> documented here:
> http://internetdemocracy.in/issues/the-wsis10-review/, though this
> doesn't reflect our intense involvement in the ten month MPP process
> for the ITU-coordinated high level meeting in June 2014, including
> preparation of a clean draft of the vision part of the outcome
> document, on the request of the MPP Chair, Prof. Minkin. Written
> inputs we made into that process can be found here:
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/pages/consolidated-texts.html.
>
> Regards,
> Anja
>
>
>
> On 11 September 2015 at 08:43, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.pk
> <mailto:shahzad at bytesforall.pk>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Parminder,
>
>     We understand the urgency of your emails but really sorry that we
>     could not respond earlier as were first busy with the logistics of
>     the consultation and then in transit for another duty travel.
>
>     As you very well know that in our part of the world, the kind of
>     political environment we work in, we have to be very transparent
>     and accountable in our income and expenditure and all kinds of
>     people ask similar questions so very happy to furnish this
>     information to you too.
>
>     Bytes for All and ICT Watch had a joint pot of funds from our
>     ongoing Internet Freedom Program. Both the organizations agreed to
>     invest in the consultation so drew on this funding and there were
>     19 people funded by these funds. Some of them were fully funded,
>     those who could partially contribute we provided either travel or
>     accommodation, some were supported only for the conference
>     package. No funds were raised specifically for this consultation
>     though.
>
>     In addition, Bytes for All and its partners also used some travel
>     funds from another regional project called APC-IMPACT with project
>     partners in India, Pakistan and Malaysia.
>
>     We still needed more money to make this important consultation
>     happen so Bytes for All contributed a bit more money from our
>     organizational funds, which we keep for different emergency
>     activities.
>
>     Best wishes and regards
>
>     Shahzad
>
>
>
>
>
>     On 9/10/15 11:45 AM, parminder wrote:
>>     Dear Valeria and Chat,
>>
>>     Thanks for the below. Yours disclosures are exemplary. I hope others
>>     follow the example.
>>
>>     I think that it is best to just declare full details - esp funding and
>>     decision making processes - of such meetings by the organisers. And I
>>     keep repeating, particularly bec this meeting was called  Asia Pacific
>>     Consultation ...
>>
>>     parminder
>>
>>     On Thursday 10 September 2015 08:54 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>>     Dear Parminder,
>>>
>>>     I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who
>>>     is not subscribed to these lists.
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Valeria
>>>     ----
>>>
>>>     APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which
>>>     helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively
>>>     participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as
>>>     the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive
>>>     than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance
>>>     processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil
>>>     society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and
>>>     informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up
>>>     opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin
>>>     America, Africa and Asia.
>>>
>>>     In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed
>>>     the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia
>>>     in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in
>>>     funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified
>>>     participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can
>>>     contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget
>>>     to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where
>>>     this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from
>>>     Sida, DGIS and EIDHR.
>>>
>>>     >From the onset, the organisers were aware that we could only bring a
>>>     limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of
>>>     all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was
>>>     expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe
>>>     that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome
>>>     document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the
>>>     various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was
>>>     meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make
>>>     submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level
>>>     meeting in December.
>>>
>>>     For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see:
>>>     https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Chat
>>>
>>>     On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote:
>>>>     Hi Anja
>>>>
>>>>     There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call
>>>>     as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained,
>>>>     public interest information about what is supposed to be a public
>>>>     interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now.
>>>>
>>>>     The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue
>>>>     because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about
>>>>     who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to
>>>>     consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also
>>>>     greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group
>>>>     involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part
>>>>     of category 1 above.)
>>>>
>>>>     I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of
>>>>     category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may
>>>>     not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective
>>>>     information under category 1 sought in my earlier email  .
>>>>
>>>>     Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues
>>>>     that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a
>>>>     worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>     Hi Parminder,
>>>>>
>>>>>     I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who
>>>>>     first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to
>>>>>     which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know,
>>>>>     the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process.
>>>>>     Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with
>>>>>     other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even
>>>>>     eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when
>>>>>     the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what
>>>>>     extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken
>>>>>     into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that
>>>>>     situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that
>>>>>     concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York -
>>>>>     something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't
>>>>>     guaranteed at all.
>>>>     Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the
>>>>     platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your
>>>>     responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website
>>>>     <http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> <http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian
>>>>     Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public
>>>>     interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices')
>>>>
>>>>>     The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are
>>>>>     organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing
>>>>>     to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and
>>>>>     minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.
>>>>     Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not
>>>>     generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to
>>>>     answer, you should just say so.
>>>>
>>>>>     No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried).
>>>>>     What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult
>>>>>     decisions indeed did have to be made.
>>>>     Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an
>>>>     "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry
>>>>     that label.
>>>>
>>>>>     What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's
>>>>>     sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from
>>>>>     a range of perspectives.
>>>>     'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of
>>>>     perspectives'  :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything,
>>>>     just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show
>>>>     how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more
>>>>     below...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>     A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two
>>>>>     years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.
>>>>     Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus
>>>>     plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of
>>>>     perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts
>>>>     all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a
>>>>     meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.
>>>>
>>>>>     As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people
>>>>>     who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we
>>>>>     were not able to offer funding.
>>>>     Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the
>>>>     decisions.
>>>>
>>>>>     Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.
>>>>     But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard
>>>>     about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this
>>>>     even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting
>>>>     my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we
>>>>     invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not
>>>>     revealing why you could not - which I now gather was  bec you had this
>>>>     Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates
>>>>     were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not
>>>>     understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being
>>>>     another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements,
>>>>     which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to
>>>>     a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self
>>>>     funded (although I could not have)  if they knew about this meeting...
>>>>     But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN
>>>>     process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of
>>>>     10 days)...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>     In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the
>>>>>     limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to
>>>>>     allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full
>>>>>     modalities of how this will work is something that we are still
>>>>>     working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring
>>>>>     that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing
>>>>>     our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first
>>>>>     in our region for a meeting of this kind.
>>>>     I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS
>>>>     process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases...
>>>>
>>>>>     Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is
>>>>>     of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day
>>>>>     one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that
>>>>>     they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources
>>>>>     to attend this event and contribute to its success.
>>>>     But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist,
>>>>     so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members
>>>>     especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including
>>>>     developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource
>>>>     page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of
>>>>     contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs,
>>>>     chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition.
>>>>     This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of
>>>>     perspectives'.
>>>>
>>>>     (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been
>>>>     added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till
>>>>     yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it
>>>>     wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC
>>>>     contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till
>>>>     yesterday?  )
>>>>>     On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are
>>>>>     now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well,
>>>>     They have worked in this area for quite some time..
>>>>
>>>>>     and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum
>>>>>     initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to
>>>>>     discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
>>>>>     locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the
>>>>>     message about this event to them though. If any representative of
>>>>>     APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely,
>>>>>     they are very welcome to do so, as are you.
>>>>     Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the
>>>>     real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and
>>>>     transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...
>>>>
>>>>>     Hope this clarifies.
>>>>     My apologies, but it doesnt.
>>>>
>>>>     Best, parminder
>>>>>     Regards,
>>>>>     Anja
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10
>>>>>         Review,
>>>>>
>>>>>         *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know
>>>>>         this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and
>>>>>         completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by
>>>>>         some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance
>>>>>         of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for
>>>>>         me to get into this thing....
>>>>>
>>>>>         This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian
>>>>>         Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process,
>>>>>         and so some questions arise in my mind:
>>>>>
>>>>>         (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>>>>>
>>>>>         (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations
>>>>>         sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my
>>>>>         view, would be a consultation)
>>>>>
>>>>>         (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
>>>>>         by whom, and who decided it..
>>>>>
>>>>>         Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
>>>>>
>>>>>         I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that
>>>>>         no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for
>>>>>         Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been
>>>>>         engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly
>>>>>         engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO
>>>>>         Engagement Mechanism <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/> <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which
>>>>>         describes itself as
>>>>>
>>>>>             "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
>>>>>             cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all
>>>>>             sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental
>>>>>             processes in regional and global level. The platform is
>>>>>             initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up
>>>>>             under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN
>>>>>             agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other
>>>>>             development related issues/processes. "
>>>>>
>>>>>         In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency
>>>>>         which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a
>>>>>         member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net
>>>>>         Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the
>>>>>         Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in
>>>>>         Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or
>>>>>         the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia
>>>>>         Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group
>>>>>         would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and
>>>>>         so my questions..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>>         Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the
>>>>>>         Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners
>>>>>>         Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional
>>>>>>         Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in
>>>>>>         Pattaya, Thailand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring
>>>>>>         together experts from different backgrounds and from around the
>>>>>>         Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs,
>>>>>>         sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to
>>>>>>         ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely
>>>>>>         address in the process of the review?
>>>>>>         *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on
>>>>>>         the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators
>>>>>>         of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can
>>>>>>         be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group
>>>>>>         will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian
>>>>>>         region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work
>>>>>>         together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper
>>>>>>         (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will
>>>>>>         be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft).
>>>>>>         The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs
>>>>>>         could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure
>>>>>>         that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board
>>>>>>         in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other
>>>>>>         processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into,
>>>>>>         these might be taken into consideration as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting
>>>>>>         that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next
>>>>>>         input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be
>>>>>>         drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a
>>>>>>         wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of
>>>>>>         professional expertise and geographical location. What unites
>>>>>>         all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet
>>>>>>         and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human
>>>>>>         rights of all in our region.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will
>>>>>>         be available. *For more information on remote participation and
>>>>>>         the event in general, please see the event website
>>>>>>         <http://www.wsis10.asia/> <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me
>>>>>>         know if you have any comments or questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Warm regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Anja
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         -- 
>>>>>>         Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>>>>         The Internet Democracy Project
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>>>>         www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in> <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>              bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <mailto: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> <mailto: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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>>>     The Internet Democracy Project
>>>>>
>>>>>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>>>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in> <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>     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
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     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
>
>     -- 
>     Shahzad Ahmad
>     Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
>     IM: shahzad at jit.si <mailto:shahzad at jit.si> | Google Talk: bytesforall
>     Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
>     Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981   Cell. +92 333 5236060
>
>     PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150913/9da96a80/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Sep 14 13:41:28 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:41:28 -0700
Subject: [governance] A Canadian Election Programme for Digital
 Citizenship and Social Equity
In-Reply-To: <026201d0ef12$643be100$2cb3a300$@gmail.com>
References: <026201d0ef12$643be100$2cb3a300$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <028901d0ef14$9661a370$c324ea50$@gmail.com>

This below was done in the context of the current Canadian election campaign
where digital/Internet issues have been almost completely ignored.

 

https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/a-canadian-programme-for-digital-c
itizenship-and-social-equity/

 

Comments, suggestions, critiques gratefully acknowledged.

 

M

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150914/d41a4180/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From toml at communisphere.com  Mon Sep 14 23:46:40 2015
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:46:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] A Canadian Election Programme for Digital
 Citizenship and Social Equity
In-Reply-To: <028901d0ef14$9661a370$c324ea50$@gmail.com>
References: <026201d0ef12$643be100$2cb3a300$@gmail.com>
 <028901d0ef14$9661a370$c324ea50$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55F794A0.6080908@communisphere.com>

CityLimits.org  post /"City Must Use .NYC to Create a Real Civic Commons 
<http://citylimits.org/2015/09/14/city-must-use-nyc-to-create-a-real-civic-commons/>"/ 
about using elements of the .nyc TLD to improve local democracy. Post 
discusses how a civic commons is to be developed and governed. It's a 10 
minute read. Here's a part:

    Here's what needs to happen: City Hall must reopen public access to
    .nyc’s planning and development processes. It should adopt a
    multi-stakeholder governance model and engage academia, business,
    civic society, government, residents and the technical community in
    an open and transparent planning process. This should be followed by
    the following:

      * *Autonomy: *City Hall must not micromanage the commons. While
        the operating contract with ICANN (the global entity that
        awarded .nyc to city hall) puts ultimate responsibility of .nyc
        in City Hall, the stakeholder communities for the various spaces
        (domain names) must have rulemaking and management authority,
        within our system of laws. Few will trust a search.nyc if it's
        operated by City Hall.
      * *Engagement:* All New Yorkers should be invited into the
        planning processes. A supportive organizational structure and
        staff should empower meaningful participation.
      * *Promotion: *Getting the word out in New York City can be an
        enormously expensive and difficult proposition. Success here
        will only arrive if City Hall promotes the commons with the same
        vigor and persistence used for 311, 911, and nyc.gov. As a
        symbol of support it should commit, with great hoopla, to moving
        the city government's website from nyc.gov to gov.nyc.
      * *Resources: * The sale of domain names is generating a surplus
        with 40 percent of the wholesale price of domain names coming to
        the city. These funds should be sufficient to support the
        development of the commons and should be channeled to a Commons
        Development Authority to facilitate implementation. Should
        additional funds be necessary, the Authority should be empowered
        to facilitate their acquisition.

Comments and sharing appreciated.

Tom Lowenhaupt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150914/43344f38/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Sep 15 15:27:27 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:27:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] [Call for expressions of interest]
 WSIS Review: Civil society coordination meeting in October
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjzGBaRedM2x8WxHWcx1d=gUS50svT1=LY=jnvqshXqQcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJTVAjzGBaRedM2x8WxHWcx1d=gUS50svT1=LY=jnvqshXqQcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5zASfqzh0fH8Kr7c7VQoAJWkOhjr=PdouZ-EZXx1R-PA@mail.gmail.com>

This is of interest in this space as well.
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org>
Date: 15 September 2015 at 14:58
Subject: [bestbits] [Call for expressions of interest] WSIS Review: Civil
society coordination meeting in October
To: Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Dear friends,

[with apologies for cross-posting]


We would like to bring to your attention *the call for expressions of
interest* to participate in *a meeting to facilitate civil society
engagement in the WSIS Review process, *scheduled to take place on *October
14-15, in New York.* The meeting is being organised by Global Partners
Digital (GPD), in collaboration with the Association for Progressive
Communications (APC), Access Now, the Centre for Communication Governance
at the National Law University in Delhi, Coding Rights, FGV/ CTS, Internet
Democracy Project, KICTANet, and Public Knowledge, with support of the
government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The WSIS process has been a unique vehicle in promoting a
development-oriented, human rights respecting information society,
recognizing the important role played by all stakeholders in its
governance. This year, as WSIS marks its 10th anniversary, the UN General
Assembly is set to evaluate its progress and decide its future
<http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/>. In order for the WSIS to continue acting as
a conduit for ICT4D underpinned by human rights beyond 2015, it is
important that views of all stakeholders, especially those from developing
countries, are reflected in its outcomes. To contribute to this goal, this
meeting will aim to further coordinate global civil society priorities,
input and engagement in the Review process. The New York meeting will take
place in advance of the deadline for submissions on the zero-draft of the
Review outcome document (October 15) as well as the informal interactive
consultations on October 19. The meeting agenda will be shared closer to
the date.


Those interested in attending should fill in the expression of interest
form available here
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1zsNlEa2MghLGe691ReHNMqj4gXKlhxu4VsR5rzLBGBY/viewform?usp=send_form>.
Limited financial support is available for a number of participants and the
information given will help decide who will receive support. Applications
will be reviewed and evaluated by GPD and the Dutch government, based on
the following criteria:

   - An active member of civil society/relevant organisation (e.g. no
   private sector or government organisations)
   - Previous engagement in the WSIS process and its Review
   - Ability to show motivation and benefit to the applicant's future work
   from participating in the meeting
   - Ability to show how the applicant's participation in the meeting would
   enhance civil society engagement in the WSIS and its Review
   - Geographic and gender diversity

Criteria for financial support are designed to ensure that a diverse spread
of participants - with focus on global south applicants and those who have
previously been engaged in the Review - is achieved, and to secure gender
and regional diversity. Due to time constraints and difficulties this poses
for obtaining visas, visa status may be taken into account for applications
received after the second deadline (24 September).

The applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis and successful
applicants will be notified within 3 working days of each deadline:

   - *Round 1 deadline: Friday, September 18th*
   - Round 2 deadline: Thursday, September 24th*
   - Round 3 deadline: Thursday, October 1st*

**We advise those who require visas to apply as soon as possible, ideally
by the first deadline.*

Lastly, *if you or your organisation are interested in co-organising the
meeting* - either by dedicating your time and energy to develop the
concept, agenda and outputs, or by contributing funding towards
participation of participants or logistical costs of the meeting, *let us
know by Friday 18th September*.

Please share this call widely.

P.S. Please note that Coding Rights has set up a WSIS+10 resource platform
for the Latin American context, and all are invited to engage there [see
note below for more information].

Best,
On behalf of the co-organisers,

Lea


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

Note:

Particularly for the Latin American and Caribbean context, Coding Rights,
in partnership with APC and support of GPD, is developing a WSIS+10
resources platform at http://wsislatam.codingrights.org. The goal is to
highlight the core issues that are at the stake for the region and enable
people to comment in a specific session/paragraph of the next documents
that are/will be under consultation (namely the non-paper; zero draft and
second draft).

The goal is to enable civil society representatives to quickly collaborate
in an issue based approach, according to their field of knowledge, research
and concern, even if they do not have the time to engage in all the issues
of the WSIS review process to organise their own submission. Comments in
that platform will be simply compiled and forwarded to the Secretariat,
according to Preparatory Process Roadmap reviewing WSIS+10, to amplify
voices from the region and posted at wsislatam.codingrights.org as a
reference for next steps of regional advocacy strategies. Please, feel
invited to engage there.


---

*Lea Kaspar*

Head of Programmes and International Policy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar

gp-digital.org

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



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150915/b288f267/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ahmed22digital at gmail.com  Tue Sep 15 15:50:59 2015
From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa sudan)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 22:50:59 +0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: [bestbits] [Call for expressions of
 interest] WSIS Review: Civil society coordination meeting in October
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5zASfqzh0fH8Kr7c7VQoAJWkOhjr=PdouZ-EZXx1R-PA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJTVAjzGBaRedM2x8WxHWcx1d=gUS50svT1=LY=jnvqshXqQcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN5zASfqzh0fH8Kr7c7VQoAJWkOhjr=PdouZ-EZXx1R-PA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACKazKrZW0jwLTDD5EyUBCvisoXKVZtxX6g6Pn-ZaXE3=jtHBQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends,

[with apologies for cross-posting]


We would like to bring to your attention *the call for expressions of
interest* to participate in *a meeting to facilitate civil society
engagement in the WSIS Review process, *scheduled to take place on *October
14-15, in New York.* The meeting is being organised by Global Partners
Digital (GPD), in collaboration with the Association for Progressive
Communications (APC), Access Now, the Centre for Communication Governance
at the National Law University in Delhi, Coding Rights, FGV/ CTS, Internet
Democracy Project, KICTANet, and Public Knowledge, with support of the
government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The WSIS process has been a unique vehicle in promoting a
development-oriented, human rights respecting information society,
recognizing the important role played by all stakeholders in its
governance. This year, as WSIS marks its 10th anniversary, the UN General
Assembly is set to evaluate its progress and decide its future
<http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/>. In order for the WSIS to continue acting as
a conduit for ICT4D underpinned by human rights beyond 2015, it is
important that views of all stakeholders, especially those from developing
countries, are reflected in its outcomes. To contribute to this goal, this
meeting will aim to further coordinate global civil society priorities,
input and engagement in the Review process. The New York meeting will take
place in advance of the deadline for submissions on the zero-draft of the
Review outcome document (October 15) as well as the informal interactive
consultations on October 19. The meeting agenda will be shared closer to
the date.


Those interested in attending should fill in the expression of interest
form available here
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1zsNlEa2MghLGe691ReHNMqj4gXKlhxu4VsR5rzLBGBY/viewform?usp=send_form>.
Limited financial support is available for a number of participants and the
information given will help decide who will receive support. Applications
will be reviewed and evaluated by GPD and the Dutch government, based on
the following criteria:

   - An active member of civil society/relevant organisation (e.g. no
   private sector or government organisations)
   - Previous engagement in the WSIS process and its Review
   - Ability to show motivation and benefit to the applicant's future work
   from participating in the meeting
   - Ability to show how the applicant's participation in the meeting would
   enhance civil society engagement in the WSIS and its Review
   - Geographic and gender diversity

Criteria for financial support are designed to ensure that a diverse spread
of participants - with focus on global south applicants and those who have
previously been engaged in the Review - is achieved, and to secure gender
and regional diversity. Due to time constraints and difficulties this poses
for obtaining visas, visa status may be taken into account for applications
received after the second deadline (24 September).

The applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis and successful
applicants will be notified within 3 working days of each deadline:

   - *Round 1 deadline: Friday, September 18th*
   - Round 2 deadline: Thursday, September 24th*
   - Round 3 deadline: Thursday, October 1st*

**We advise those who require visas to apply as soon as possible, ideally
by the first deadline.*

Lastly, *if you or your organisation are interested in co-organising the
meeting* - either by dedicating your time and energy to develop the
concept, agenda and outputs, or by contributing funding towards
participation of participants or logistical costs of the meeting, *let us
know by Friday 18th September*.

Please share this call widely.

Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa
+249123031155 Sudani

+249912331155 Zain

+249999331155  MTN
KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021

post code 12217


 http://www.gedaref.com/


Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit
organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where
ICT is used for community development.  GDCO is the winner of information
for development award  (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the
disabled, GDCO is the  winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations
at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the
initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and
other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the
winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in
Sudan.  The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the
founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the
thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the
founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750
computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for
community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG
(foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new
partnership for community development including people with disability
(especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture,
SeVO and other project




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:27 PM
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] [Call for expressions of interest]
WSIS Review: Civil society coordination meeting in October
To: Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>


This is of interest in this space as well.
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org>
Date: 15 September 2015 at 14:58
Subject: [bestbits] [Call for expressions of interest] WSIS Review: Civil
society coordination meeting in October
To: Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Dear friends,

[with apologies for cross-posting]


We would like to bring to your attention *the call for expressions of
interest* to participate in *a meeting to facilitate civil society
engagement in the WSIS Review process, *scheduled to take place on *October
14-15, in New York.* The meeting is being organised by Global Partners
Digital (GPD), in collaboration with the Association for Progressive
Communications (APC), Access Now, the Centre for Communication Governance
at the National Law University in Delhi, Coding Rights, FGV/ CTS, Internet
Democracy Project, KICTANet, and Public Knowledge, with support of the
government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The WSIS process has been a unique vehicle in promoting a
development-oriented, human rights respecting information society,
recognizing the important role played by all stakeholders in its
governance. This year, as WSIS marks its 10th anniversary, the UN General
Assembly is set to evaluate its progress and decide its future
<http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/>. In order for the WSIS to continue acting as
a conduit for ICT4D underpinned by human rights beyond 2015, it is
important that views of all stakeholders, especially those from developing
countries, are reflected in its outcomes. To contribute to this goal, this
meeting will aim to further coordinate global civil society priorities,
input and engagement in the Review process. The New York meeting will take
place in advance of the deadline for submissions on the zero-draft of the
Review outcome document (October 15) as well as the informal interactive
consultations on October 19. The meeting agenda will be shared closer to
the date.


Those interested in attending should fill in the expression of interest
form available here
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1zsNlEa2MghLGe691ReHNMqj4gXKlhxu4VsR5rzLBGBY/viewform?usp=send_form>.
Limited financial support is available for a number of participants and the
information given will help decide who will receive support. Applications
will be reviewed and evaluated by GPD and the Dutch government, based on
the following criteria:

   - An active member of civil society/relevant organisation (e.g. no
   private sector or government organisations)
   - Previous engagement in the WSIS process and its Review
   - Ability to show motivation and benefit to the applicant's future work
   from participating in the meeting
   - Ability to show how the applicant's participation in the meeting would
   enhance civil society engagement in the WSIS and its Review
   - Geographic and gender diversity

Criteria for financial support are designed to ensure that a diverse spread
of participants - with focus on global south applicants and those who have
previously been engaged in the Review - is achieved, and to secure gender
and regional diversity. Due to time constraints and difficulties this poses
for obtaining visas, visa status may be taken into account for applications
received after the second deadline (24 September).

The applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis and successful
applicants will be notified within 3 working days of each deadline:

   - *Round 1 deadline: Friday, September 18th*
   - Round 2 deadline: Thursday, September 24th*
   - Round 3 deadline: Thursday, October 1st*

**We advise those who require visas to apply as soon as possible, ideally
by the first deadline.*

Lastly, *if you or your organisation are interested in co-organising the
meeting* - either by dedicating your time and energy to develop the
concept, agenda and outputs, or by contributing funding towards
participation of participants or logistical costs of the meeting, *let us
know by Friday 18th September*.

Please share this call widely.

P.S. Please note that Coding Rights has set up a WSIS+10 resource platform
for the Latin American context, and all are invited to engage there [see
note below for more information].

Best,
On behalf of the co-organisers,

Lea


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

Note:

Particularly for the Latin American and Caribbean context, Coding Rights,
in partnership with APC and support of GPD, is developing a WSIS+10
resources platform at http://wsislatam.codingrights.org. The goal is to
highlight the core issues that are at the stake for the region and enable
people to comment in a specific session/paragraph of the next documents
that are/will be under consultation (namely the non-paper; zero draft and
second draft).

The goal is to enable civil society representatives to quickly collaborate
in an issue based approach, according to their field of knowledge, research
and concern, even if they do not have the time to engage in all the issues
of the WSIS review process to organise their own submission. Comments in
that platform will be simply compiled and forwarded to the Secretariat,
according to Preparatory Process Roadmap reviewing WSIS+10, to amplify
voices from the region and posted at wsislatam.codingrights.org as a
reference for next steps of regional advocacy strategies. Please, feel
invited to engage there.


---

*Lea Kaspar*

Head of Programmes and International Policy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar

gp-digital.org

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



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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your 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/20150915/edd7bfe1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Sep 15 16:12:38 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:12:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Internet Rights @HRC30
In-Reply-To: <55F8538D.9080800@apc.org>
References: <55F8538D.9080800@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4-9qVFFMg4hUyWDaBtBChmVoso9u9cFfN+0J0oXY+VdQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Deborah and APC.
This will be of interest to IGC as well.
Deirdre

On 15 September 2015 at 13:21, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> APC and Access have prepared a briefing on internet rights issues on the
> agenda for the 30th session of the Human Rights Council, which started
> yesterday:
>
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/news/internet-rights-human-rights-council%E2%80%99s-30th-sessio
>
> All the best,
> Deborah
>
> --
>
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Project Coordinator
> Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
> www.apc.org
> deborah at apc.org
> @deblebrown
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150915/79b2ee65/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ahmed22digital at gmail.com  Wed Sep 16 13:05:07 2015
From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa sudan)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:05:07 +0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] [Call for expressions of interest]
 WSIS Review: Civil society coordination meeting in October
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5zASfqzh0fH8Kr7c7VQoAJWkOhjr=PdouZ-EZXx1R-PA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJTVAjzGBaRedM2x8WxHWcx1d=gUS50svT1=LY=jnvqshXqQcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN5zASfqzh0fH8Kr7c7VQoAJWkOhjr=PdouZ-EZXx1R-PA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACKazKohvfT2wJcp+5Mkk8VYBHh+uwmBQp6qqSh=3_a6uGCuJg@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.unite-it.eu/profiles/blogs/global-partners-digital-gpd-is-supporting-the-wsis-10-prepartory

http://www.unite-it.eu/profiles/blogs/sudan-telecentre-movement-gdco-non-paper-submitted-to-the-wsis

http://www.unite-it.eu/profiles/blogs/gdco-participation-in-wsis-forums-and-other-itu-conferences-1

http://www.unite-it.eu/profiles/blogs/gdco-sudan-vision-4-wsis-10-beyond-2015

http://community.telecentre.org/profiles/blogs/sudan-telecentre-movement-gdco-non-paper-submitted-to-the-wsis?xg_source=activity






Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa
+249123031155 Sudani

+249912331155 Zain

+249999331155  MTN
KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021

post code 12217


 http://www.gedaref.com/


Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit
organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where
ICT is used for community development.  GDCO is the winner of information
for development award  (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the
disabled, GDCO is the  winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations
at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the
initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and
other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the
winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in
Sudan.  The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the
founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the
thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the
founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750
computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for
community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG
(foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new
partnership for community development including people with disability
(especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture,
SeVO and other project




On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is of interest in this space as well.
> Deirdre
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org>
> Date: 15 September 2015 at 14:58
> Subject: [bestbits] [Call for expressions of interest] WSIS Review: Civil
> society coordination meeting in October
> To: Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> Dear friends,
>
> [with apologies for cross-posting]
>
>
> We would like to bring to your attention *the call for expressions of
> interest* to participate in *a meeting to facilitate civil society
> engagement in the WSIS Review process, *scheduled to take place on *October
> 14-15, in New York.* The meeting is being organised by Global Partners
> Digital (GPD), in collaboration with the Association for Progressive
> Communications (APC), Access Now, the Centre for Communication Governance
> at the National Law University in Delhi, Coding Rights, FGV/ CTS, Internet
> Democracy Project, KICTANet, and Public Knowledge, with support of the
> government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
>
> The WSIS process has been a unique vehicle in promoting a
> development-oriented, human rights respecting information society,
> recognizing the important role played by all stakeholders in its
> governance. This year, as WSIS marks its 10th anniversary, the UN General
> Assembly is set to evaluate its progress and decide its future
> <http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/>. In order for the WSIS to continue acting
> as a conduit for ICT4D underpinned by human rights beyond 2015, it is
> important that views of all stakeholders, especially those from developing
> countries, are reflected in its outcomes. To contribute to this goal, this
> meeting will aim to further coordinate global civil society priorities,
> input and engagement in the Review process. The New York meeting will take
> place in advance of the deadline for submissions on the zero-draft of the
> Review outcome document (October 15) as well as the informal interactive
> consultations on October 19. The meeting agenda will be shared closer to
> the date.
>
>
> Those interested in attending should fill in the expression of interest
> form available here
> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1zsNlEa2MghLGe691ReHNMqj4gXKlhxu4VsR5rzLBGBY/viewform?usp=send_form>.
> Limited financial support is available for a number of participants and the
> information given will help decide who will receive support. Applications
> will be reviewed and evaluated by GPD and the Dutch government, based on
> the following criteria:
>
>    - An active member of civil society/relevant organisation (e.g. no
>    private sector or government organisations)
>    - Previous engagement in the WSIS process and its Review
>    - Ability to show motivation and benefit to the applicant's future
>    work from participating in the meeting
>    - Ability to show how the applicant's participation in the meeting
>    would enhance civil society engagement in the WSIS and its Review
>    - Geographic and gender diversity
>
> Criteria for financial support are designed to ensure that a diverse
> spread of participants - with focus on global south applicants and those
> who have previously been engaged in the Review - is achieved, and to secure
> gender and regional diversity. Due to time constraints and difficulties
> this poses for obtaining visas, visa status may be taken into account for
> applications received after the second deadline (24 September).
>
> The applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis and successful
> applicants will be notified within 3 working days of each deadline:
>
>    - *Round 1 deadline: Friday, September 18th*
>    - Round 2 deadline: Thursday, September 24th*
>    - Round 3 deadline: Thursday, October 1st*
>
> **We advise those who require visas to apply as soon as possible, ideally
> by the first deadline.*
>
> Lastly, *if you or your organisation are interested in co-organising the
> meeting* - either by dedicating your time and energy to develop the
> concept, agenda and outputs, or by contributing funding towards
> participation of participants or logistical costs of the meeting, *let us
> know by Friday 18th September*.
>
> Please share this call widely.
>
> P.S. Please note that Coding Rights has set up a WSIS+10 resource platform
> for the Latin American context, and all are invited to engage there [see
> note below for more information].
>
> Best,
> On behalf of the co-organisers,
>
> Lea
>
>
> ************
>
> Note:
>
> Particularly for the Latin American and Caribbean context, Coding Rights,
> in partnership with APC and support of GPD, is developing a WSIS+10
> resources platform at http://wsislatam.codingrights.org. The goal is to
> highlight the core issues that are at the stake for the region and enable
> people to comment in a specific session/paragraph of the next documents
> that are/will be under consultation (namely the non-paper; zero draft and
> second draft).
>
> The goal is to enable civil society representatives to quickly collaborate
> in an issue based approach, according to their field of knowledge, research
> and concern, even if they do not have the time to engage in all the issues
> of the WSIS review process to organise their own submission. Comments in
> that platform will be simply compiled and forwarded to the Secretariat,
> according to Preparatory Process Roadmap reviewing WSIS+10, to amplify
> voices from the region and posted at wsislatam.codingrights.org as a
> reference for next steps of regional advocacy strategies. Please, feel
> invited to engage there.
>
>
> ---
>
> *Lea Kaspar*
>
> Head of Programmes and International Policy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar
>
> gp-digital.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150916/9718de06/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr  Thu Sep 17 20:54:36 2015
From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo))
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 01:54:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] [Call for expressions of interest]
 WSIS Review: Civil society coordination meeting in October
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5zASfqzh0fH8Kr7c7VQoAJWkOhjr=PdouZ-EZXx1R-PA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1442537676.72571.YahooMailIosMobile@web28701.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150918/091df672/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Sun Sep 20 09:01:22 2015
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:31:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] Submission to WSIS+10 Review based on Pattaya Key
 Messages - additional supporters welcome
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDF4rduNgfFu6VEXc3bOuHjjT2KKOOYJXfznuCDrvHZag@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I wanted to share with you all the submission that was made to the WSIS+10
Review using the Pattaya Key Messages, the outcome document of the Asian
Regional on the WSIS+10 Review that took place in Pattaya, Thailand,
earlier this month (see wsis10.asia for more information).

This has been sent off as is already, but if you are working in the Asia
Pacific region and want to endorse this either individually or
institutionally, please let me know within the next 26 hours and so -
hoping this will still be taken into account, we plan to send an updated
(and final) list of endorsements of this WSIS+10 Review submission on
Monday.

Thanks and best regards,
Anja

-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150920/35b37b0b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Pattaya Key Messages - Voices from the Asia Pacific - Comment on WSIS+10 Review Non-paper September 2015.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 599539 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150920/35b37b0b/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 LB at lucabelli.net  Sun Sep 20 22:32:15 2015
From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net)
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 19:32:15 -0700
Subject: [governance] Input Document with Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Message-ID: <20150920193215.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.57ebbd584c.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150920/4c670976/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DCNN Input Document with track-changes.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 60416 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150920/4c670976/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Mon Sep 21 09:08:42 2015
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:08:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Submission to WSIS+10 Review based on
 Pattaya Key Messages - additional supporters welcome
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjzf34tx=MQA_nkzJLGRstDDC321Aps=H3UUouriH1Zbpg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHDF4rduNgfFu6VEXc3bOuHjjT2KKOOYJXfznuCDrvHZag@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJTVAjzf34tx=MQA_nkzJLGRstDDC321Aps=H3UUouriH1Zbpg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA_mTY2CaeOA1pHUijfkMvmnZzOfi1UPBweGu7ZTPXdMaQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1, Excellent collaboration and very strong document!  Thanks for leading
us on this

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Congratulations on putting this together, Anja and all who contributed.
> Thanks for sharing!
>
> Best,
> Lea
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I wanted to share with you all the submission that was made to the
>> WSIS+10 Review using the Pattaya Key Messages, the outcome document of the
>> Asian Regional on the WSIS+10 Review that took place in Pattaya, Thailand,
>> earlier this month (see wsis10.asia for more information).
>>
>> This has been sent off as is already, but if you are working in the Asia
>> Pacific region and want to endorse this either individually or
>> institutionally, please let me know within the next 26 hours and so -
>> hoping this will still be taken into account, we plan to send an updated
>> (and final) list of endorsements of this WSIS+10 Review submission on
>> Monday.
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Anja
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20150921/f4fba1a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Mon Sep 21 14:35:23 2015
From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:35:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] Input Document with Policy Statement on Net
 Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <20150920193215.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.57ebbd584c.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
References: <20150920193215.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.57ebbd584c.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <2DC9DA69-7194-40AE-9F0E-D57D47DE8327@christopherwilkinson.eu>

Dear Luca:

Thankyou.  I am glad that this project has evolved to this stage. 

Regarding the track-changes amendments, I think that they are an improvement and support them.

Regarding the List of Contributors, I would prefer to appear without affiliation. In any event, I am not affiliated with ISOC Luxembourg.

Many thanks and best wishes to you all

Christopher Wilkinson.


On 21 Sep 2015, at 04:32, LB at lucabelli.net wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Please find in attachment and below the draft Input Document on Network Neutrality to be presented at the IGF main session on dynamic coalitions' outcomes. The Input Document contains the consolidated version of the Policy Statement on Network Neutrality, which has been updated considering the comments published on the IGF website so far. http://review.intgovforum.org/igf-2015/dynamic-coalitions/dynamic-coalition-on-network-neutrality-dcnn/
> 
> All modifications are in track changes. Should you have any comments or suggestions on the Input Document, please share them on the DCNN mailing-list by 27 September. http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition
> 
> The finalised Input Document will be published on the IGF website by 1st October. It will be possible to post comments on the Input Document after its publication online but the text will not be modified after 1 October.
> 
> Best regards,
> Luca
> 
> __________________
> 
> Input Document on Network Neutrality
>  
>  
>  
> This input document has been developed through an open and multistakeholder process facilitated by the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN). The process has been initiated with a Request for Comments aimed at the development of one or more Policy Statement(s) on Net Neutrality. The process has been promoted by members of the DCNN and the Global Net Neutrality Coalition (GNN), and aimed at the definition of an agreed position on net neutrality, based on the Model Framework on Network Neutrality developed by the DCNN.
>  
> The DCNN Model Framework (MF) was presented at the 8th IGF in Bali and included in a Report on “Protecting Human Rights through Network Neutrality” delivered to the Council of Europe Steering Committee on Media and Information Society to be used as a working document for the elaboration of a Draft Recommendation on Net Neutrality. To date, DCNN members have conveyed the MF to several Parliamentary assemblies (EU Parliament, Argentinian Senate and South Korean Parliament) whilst the GNN has decided to utilize the MF as “Model Rules”. Although it has already played an inspirational role, the MF has never been officially validated by the IGF community at-large, as pointed out by the Final Chair's Summary of the IGF 2014, according to which “[t]he ninth IGF concluded with looking at the role of the IGF in taking the network neutrality discussion forward. [...] The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality will continue the discussions leading up to the 2015 meeting, but the view was also held that there was a need to develop a process that allowed the entire IGF community to weigh in and validate the findings of the Dynamic Coalition.”
>  
> This lack of validation is primarily due to the lack of an official process aimed at discussing dynamic coalitions' outcomes within the IGF community. The IGF 2015 will introduce for the first time a main session allowing dynamic coalitions to present their work to the broader community, thus contributing to the definition tangible IGF outputs, as recommended by the CSTD Working Group for IGF Improvement. The development of a Policy Statement on Network Neutrality is consistent with the Chair’s Summary and aims at feeding the main session on dynamic coalitions’ outcomes with a concrete proposal.
>  
> The Policy Statement on Network Neutrality has been elaborated through several rounds of consultation, organised from the beginning of May to the end of September 2015. According to DC NN Rules of Procedure, two drafters have been designated in order to “manage the elaboration of the position or statement and consolidate received comments with the aim of achieving a consensus document.”
> The two designated drafters were:
> ·                    Luca Belli, DCNN Co-Chair and Researcher at the Center for Technology & Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro
> ·                    Michał Woźniak, Warsaw Hackerspace and Polish Linux Users Group
> 
> 
> Policy Statement on Network Neutrality
>  
> Preamble
> a)                  The Internet should be open, secure and accessible to all people.
> b)                 Network Neutrality plays an instrumental role in preserving Internet openness; fostering the enjoyment of Internet users' human rights; promoting competition and equality of opportunity; safeguarding the generative peer-to-peer nature of the Internet; and spreading the benefits of the Internet to all people.
> c)                  Managing Internet traffic in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner compatible with the Network Neutrality Principle serves the interests of the public by preserving a level playing field with minimal barriers to entry and by providing equal opportunity for the invention and development of new applications, services and business models.
> d)                 Competition among broadband networks, technologies and all players of the Internet ecosystem is essential to ensure the openness of the Internet. 
>  
> 1. Network Neutrality Principle
> Network Neutrality is the principle according to which Internet traffic is shall be treated without discrimination, restriction or interference regardless of its sender, recipient, type or content, so that Internet users’ freedom is not restricted by unreasonably favouring or disfavouring (technically, financially, economically or otherwise) the transmission of specific Internet traffic.
>  
> 2. Non-discriminatoryReasonable Traffic Management
> In accordance with the Network Neutrality Principle, Internet service providers shall should not restrict, block, discriminate, filter, or otherwise interfere with Internet traffic. Any deviation from this principle may be considered as reasonable traffic management as long as it is necessary and proportionate to:
> a)                  give force to a court order or a legal provision in accordance with human rights norms and  international law;
> b)                 preserve network security and integrity;
> c)                  mitigate the effects of temporary and exceptional congestion, primarily by means of applicationprotocol-agnostic measures or, when these measures do not prove efficientpracticable, by means of applicationprotocol-specific measures;.
> d)                 prioritise emergency services in the case of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure.
> In particular, the availability and quality of Internet access services should not be degraded impaired by or for the provision of other services, including those requiring special level of quality or security, provided by the Internet service provider.
>  
> 3. Transparent Traffic Management
> Internet service providers shall should publish meaningful and transparent information on characteristics and conditions of the Internet access services they offer, the connection speeds that are to be provided, and their traffic management practices, notably with regard to how Internet access services may be affected by simultaneous usage of other services provided by the Internet service provider. 
>  
> 4. Privacy
> All players on the Internet value chain, including governments, shall comply with privacy and data protection norms and international law. In particular, any techniques to inspect or analyse Internet traffic shall be in accordance with privacy and data protection obligations and subject to clear legal protections. 
>  
> 5. Implementation and Enforcement
> In order to enforce the Network Neutrality Principle, tThe competent national authorities should promote independent testing of Internet traffic management practices, ensure the availability of Internet access and evaluate the compatibility of Internet access policies with the Network Neutrality Principle as well as with the respect of human rights norms and international law. National authorities should publicly report their findings. Complaint procedures to address network neutrality violations should be available and violations should attract appropriate fines.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> List of Contributors
>  
> ·                    Luca Belli, Fundação Getulio Vargas (co-drafter)
> ·                    Michal Wozniak, Polish Linux Users Group (co-drafter) 
> ·                    Gonzalo Lopez-Baracas, Telefonica 
> ·                    Eduardo Chomali, Telefonica
> ·                    Chris Riley, Mozilla
> ·                    Jeremy Malcolm, EFF
> ·                    Abhik Chaudhuri, Tata Consultancy
> ·                    Lorenzo Pupillo, Telecom Italia
> ·                    Grupo Usuarios de Interent en Ecuados
> ·                    Sudeep KC, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation
> ·                    TechFreedom
> ·                    Ekenda Lamsal, ICT Expert dedicated to #ICT4DNepal
> ·                    Facebook
> ·                    Chris Marsden, Sussex University 
> ·                    Konstantinos Stylianou, Leeds University
> ·                    William Ametozion, Network Engineer
> ·                    Kamumuri Sraju, entrepreneur and technolgist 
> ·                    Nathalia Foditch, Washington University
> ·                    Greg Shatan, Abelman Frayne & Schwab
> ·                    Brandt Dainow, iMedia Connection
> ·                    Seth Johnson, Internet Distinction
> ·                    Parminder Jeet Sing, ICT for Change
> ·                    ACCESS 
> ·                    Roslyn Layton, University of Copenhagen
> ·                    John Laprise, Consulting Scholar
> ·                    Christopher Wilkinson, ISOC Luxembourg
> ·                    Vint Cerf, Google
> ·                    Cellular Operator Association of India 
> ·                    European Digital Rights
> ·                    Judith Hellerstein, University of Maryland
> ·                    Richard Hill, Association for Proper Internet Governance
> ·                    Fastweb
> ·                    European Broadcasting Union
> ·                    Chip Sharp, CISCO
> ·                    Louise Nasak, Individual Consultancy Group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> <DCNN Input Document with track-changes.doc>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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/20150921/82f8dc08/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in  Mon Sep 21 17:46:53 2015
From: gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in (Gangesh S. Varma)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 03:16:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] CCG's Comments on the WSIS+10 Review Non-Paper
Message-ID: <CAEKkfMsXhOV=zyqQXG=o9+=iriEOkgop2L1VG8v0f1rEn2jMVw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

We at the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law
University Delhi are pleased to share with you our comments on the WSIS+10
Review Non-paper.

We welcome your comments and feedback.

Thanks and regards

Gangesh
-- 

Gangesh Sreekumar Varma | Senior Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi
| Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 8447159123 | Fax:
(+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org
<http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi
<https://twitter.com/CCGDelhi> . @gangeshvarma
<https://twitter.com/gangeshvarma>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150922/5c2e186d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: (CCG-NLUD) UNGA WSIS Review Comments on Non-paper (2).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 246527 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150922/5c2e186d/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  Tue Sep 22 06:36:10 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:36:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] September 22 is OneWebDay!
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3t_Y9zz3WRuoFG7n_vq0Ua-EDbbB3Nha=j0ZD_64941g@mail.gmail.com>

 This year's *OneWebDay <http://onewebday.org/>* celebration has picked up
the theme of *Connecting the Next Billion*. This aligns with current *Internet
Governance Forum* (IGF) Intersessional Programme *“Policy Options for
Connecting the Next Billion
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/policy-options-for-connection-the-next-billion>”*.
It is considered by the e IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) that,
while 3 billion are estimated to be online in 2015, “more effort is
necessary in order to connect the next billion and to address the digital
divide” and “Collaboration between governmental and non-governmental actors
is key to meet this challenge.” It is felt that the tried and trusted
multistakeholder approach, as exemplified by the IGF, is the only practical
method to bring all shoulders to the wheel.

In a keynote speech at the USA IGF in July 2015, United States Under
Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment *Catherine
Novelli* ably summed up this point of view, quoting a *2014 report
<http://a4ai.org/affordability-report/report/#policies,_regulations_and_programmes_for_stimulating_affordable_access>*
from
the *Alliance for an Affordable Internet <http://a4ai.org/>* (A4AI) that
delineated four critical aspects that any Government should consider as
drivers of broadband expansion and affordable access: First, drive
broadband infrastructure expansion through increased private investment and
removal of barriers; Second, intensify competition and level the playing
field to increase access, reduce cost and stimulate demand; Third, open
access and infrastructure sharing; and fourth, enable access to spectrum.
There’s no quick slogan here, but if any the unifying principal is *OPEN
ACCESS*.

So for *OneWebDay 2015*, it is suggested that you review, and discuss Ms.
Novelli’s remarks  (24 mins),


*View on YouTube*: *https://youtu.be/rLgF6KjhDZY
<https://youtu.be/rLgF6KjhDZY>* (captions available)
*Prepared text*: *http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/245011.htm
<http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/245011.htm>*
*Verbatim transcript*: *http://isoc-ny.org/usaigf15/08-igf-usa2015-novelli.pdf
<http://isoc-ny.org/usaigf15/08-igf-usa2015-novelli.pdf>*

*FURTHER VIEWING*: At the IGF USA this was followed by a panel with reps
from *USAID*, *Facebook*, *Google*, *Comcast*, *A4AI*, & the *Internet
Society* who expanded on the Connecting the Next Billion theme (60 mins):


*View on YouTube*: *https://youtu.be/3ACLPigSZ5o
<https://youtu.be/3ACLPigSZ5o>* (captions available)
*Verbatim transcript*: *http://isoc-ny.org/usaigf15/09-igf-usa2015-billion.pdf
<http://isoc-ny.org/usaigf15/09-igf-usa2015-billion.pdf>*

*ACTION*: So, what can you do?
1) Post, link to, and discuss the themes above, in particular drawing them
to the attention of your local regulators. Use hashtags *#onewebday
<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23onewebday&src=typd>* and *#thenextbillion
<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23thenextbillion&src=typd>*.
2) Participate in/contribute to the IGF Policy development process by *making
a written contribution
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/policy-options-for-connection-the-next-billion#make-a-written-contribution>*

Here is one last video – *Constance Bommelaer*, Senior Director, Global
Internet Policy, at the Internet Society, speaking
​about the "Next Billions"
at the African Internet Governance Forum
​on September 7
. Constance
​summarizes
 the theme, and cogently connects it with the various other major policy
processes underway such as the WSIS+10 review. She appeals, as we do, for
stakeholders to engage in the IGF intersessional policy options
development, noting this is the first time that the IGF community has
worked between meetings to bring not only best practices, but definitive
frameworks that can enhance private and public efforts to improve access
via technical, policy, and educational aspects.
​(19 mins)​



*View on YouTube*: https://youtu.be/czAFnU0nGAA


*Download audio*:
http://isoc-ny.org/misc/the_next_billion_constance_bommelaer.mp3​




​​



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150922/78860e34/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Tue Sep 22 09:47:24 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:47:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] [SIMPDA2015] Fifth International Symposium on
 Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis
Message-ID: <018701d0f53d$365848b0$a308da10$@unimi.it>

***SIMPDA 2015***

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP]
****************************************************************************
**
FIFTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON DATA-DRIVEN PROCESS DISCOVERY AND ANALYSIS
9-11 DECEMBER, 2015 - VIENNA, AUSTRIA
simpda2015.di.unimi.it
****************************************************************************
**

About SIMPDA
With the increasing automation of business processes, growing amounts of
process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for
business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6
International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis is to
offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the industry
can share their insight in this hot new field.
The Symposium will feature a number of keynotes illustrating advanced
approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, a competitive PhD
seminar and selected research and industrial demonstrations. This year the
symposium will be held in Vienna, a city in the UNESCO World Heritage List.

Call for Papers
The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and
Analysis (SIMPDA 2014) offers a unique opportunity to present new approaches
and research results to researchers and practitioners working in business
process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis.
The symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and
scientists from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 15 pages.
Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original
contributions, not previously published or under review for publication
elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English and must follow the
LNCS Springer Verlag format. Templates can be downloaded from:
http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html
Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceeding volume of CEUR
workshop series. The authors of the accepted papers will be invited to
submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume which will
be published in the LNBIP series (Lecture Notes in Business Information
Processing, http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for early 2015
(extended papers length will be between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 10-15
papers will be selected for publication after a second round of review.

Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:
- Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods
- Lightweight Process Model
- Data-aware and data-centric approaches
- Process Mining with Big Data
- Variability and configuration of process models
- Process simulation and static analyses
- Process data query languages
- Process data mining
- Privacy-aware process data mining
- Process metadata and semantic reasoning
- Process patterns and standards
- Foundations of business process models
- Resource management in business process execution
- Process tracing and monitoring
- Process change management and evolution
- Business process lifecycle
- Case studies and experience reports
- Social process discovery
- Crowdsourced process definition and discovery

IMPORTANT DATES

Paper Submission: 3 October 2015

Submission of PhD Presentations: 3 October 2015

Notification of Acceptance: 7 November 2015

Submission of Camera Ready Papers: 21 November 2015

Second International Symposium on Process Data: 9-11 December 2015

Post-proceeding submissions: 30 March 2016

Workshop Format:
In accordance to our historical tradition of proposing SIMPDA as a
symposium, we propose an innovative format for this workshop:
The number of sessions depend on the number of submissions but, considering
the previous editions, we envisage to have four sessions, with 4-5 related
papers assigned to each session. A special session (with a specific review
process) will be dedicated to discuss research plan from PhD students.
Papers are pre-circulated to the authors that will be expected to read all
papers in advance but to avoid exceptional overhead, two are assigned to be
prepared with particular care,  making ready comments and suggestions.
The bulk of the time during each session will be dedicated to open
conversations about all of the papers in a given session, along with any
linkages to the papers and discussions within an earlier session.
The closing session (30 minutes), will include a panel about open challenges
during which every participant will be asked to assemble their
thoughts/project ideas/goals/etc
 that they got out of the workshop.

Call for PhD Research Plans
The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the
world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and
research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their
research results.
Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an
extended abstract describing their research. Submissions can relate to any
aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy
analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions,
interaction and design advances, innovative applications, and social
implications.
Research plans should be at most of 5 page long and should be organized
following the following structure:
Abstract: summarizes, in 5 line, the research aims and significance.
Research Question: defines what will be accomplished by eliciting the
relevant the research questions.
Background: defines the background knowledge providing the 5 most relevant
references (papers or books).
Significance: explains the relevance of the general topic and of the
specific contribution.
Research design and methods: describes and motivates the method adopted
focusing on: assumptions, solutions, data sources, validation of results,
limitations of the approach.
Research stage: describes what the student has done so far.

SIMPDA PhD award
A doctoral award will be given by the SIMPDA PhD Jury to the best research
plan submitted.
Student Scholarships
An application for a limited number of scholarships aimed at students coming
from emerging countries has been submitted to IFIP.
In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it

Keynote Speakers

Visual Analytics meets Process Mining: Challenges and Opportunities
Theresia Gschwandtner and Silvia Miksch
Vienna University of Technology

	Event data or traces of activities often exhibit unexpected behavior
and complex relations. Thus, before and during the application of automated
analysis methods, such as process mining algorithms, the analyst needs to
investigate and understand the data at hand in order to decide which
analysis methods might be appropriate. Visual Analytics integrates the
outstanding capabilities of humans in terms of visual information
exploration with the enormous processing power of computers to form a
powerful knowledge discovery environment. The combination of visual data
exploration with process mining algorithms makes complex information
structures more comprehensible and facilitates new insights.
      In this talk, we will illustrate the various concepts of visual
process mining, focusing on the challenges, but also the great opportunities
for analyzing process data with Visual Analytics methods.

Contextualisation Techniques in Process Mining
Schahram Dustdar
Vienna University of Technology, Austria

Organizers

CHAIRS
Stefanie Rinderle-Ma, Universität Wien, Austria
Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

ADVISORY BOARD
Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy
Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria
Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands
Philippe Cudré-Mauroux , University of Fribourg, Switzerland

Program Committee
- MOHAMED ACHEMLAL, UNIVERSITY OF BORDEAUX, FRANCE
- MARCO ANISETTI, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO, ITALY
- IRENE VANDERFEESTEN, EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, THE NETHERLANDS
- CLAUDIO ARDAGNA, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO, ITALY
- HELEN BALINSKY, HEWLETT-PACKARD LABORATORIES, UK
- MIRCO BIANCO, METROCONSULT ROBERTO DINI AND PARTNERS, ITALY
- JOOS BUIJS, EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, THE NETHERLANDS
- ANTONIO CAFORIO, UNIVERSITÀ DEL SALENTO, ITALY
- CAROLINA CHIAO, UNIVERSITY OF ULM, GERMANY
- TONY CLARK, MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY, UK
- BARABARA WEBER, UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA
- PAUL COTOFREI, UNIVERSITY OF NEUCHÂTEL, SWITZERLAND
- PHILIPPE CUDRE-MAUROUX, UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG, SWITZERLAND
- NORA CUPPENS, ÉCOLE NATIONALE SUPÉRIEURE DES TELECOMMUNICATIONS DE
BRETAGNE, FRANCE
- GIANLUCA DEMARTINI, UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD, UK.
- CLAUDIO DI CICCIO, WU VIENNA, AUSTRIA
- SCHAHRAM DUSTDAR, VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, AUSTRIA
- GREGOR GRAMBOW, UNIVERSITY OF ULM, GERMANY
- CHRISTIAN GUETL, UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ, AUSTRIA
- MOHAND-SAID HACID, UNIVERSITY OF LYON, FRANCE
- VINCENT HILAIRE, UNIVERSITÉ DE TECHNOLOGIE DE BELFORT MONTBÉLIARD, FRANCE
- WEI-CHIANG HONG, ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CHINA
- MUSTAFA JARRAR, BIRZEIT UNIVERSITY, PALESTINE
- MEIKO JENSEN, RUHR-UNI­VER­SI­TY BO­CHUM, GERMANY
- MASSIMO MECELLA, SAPIENZA UNIVERSITÀ DI ROMA, ITALY
- JAN MENDLING, WU VIENNA, AUSTRIA
- KWANGHOON PIO KIM, KYONGGI UNIVERSITY, SOUTH KOREA.
- BARBARA RUSSO, FREE UNIVERSITY OF BOZEN - BOLZANO, ITALY
- GIOVANNA SISSA, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI GENOVA, ITALY
- MAURICE VAN KEULEN, UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE, THE NETHERLANDS
- MATTHIAS WEIDLICH, IMPERIAL COLLEGE, UK
- ISABELLA SEEBER, UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA
- ZEESHAN PERVEZ, UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF SCOTLAND, UK
- MARCIN WYLOT, UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG, SWITZERLAND
- JOSE JACOBO ZUBCOFF, UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTE, SPAIN
- WILFRIED GROSSMANN, UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA, AUSTRIA
- KARIMA BOUDAOUD, ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE NICE SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS, FRANCE

Historical Information on Previous Editions
SIMPDA was proposed in 2011 and 2012 by IFIP WG 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 as the
International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis.
The symposium had around 30 attendees in 2011 and 20 in 2012. It featured a
number of keynotes illustrating new approaches, shorter presentations on
recent research, and a competitive PhD seminar, together with selected
research and industrial demonstrations. The authors of the accepted papers
have been invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium
proceedings volume published in the Springer LNBIP series.
Several events and activities arose off these symposia, among the most
notables we have two Dagstuhl seminars:
Dagstuhl Seminar on Semantic Challenges in Sensor Networks, January 24-29,
2010.
Dagstuhl Seminar on Unleashing Operational Process Mining, November 24-29,
2010.




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

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


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

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

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

From puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in  Tue Sep 22 12:12:43 2015
From: puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in (Puneeth Nagaraj)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:42:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] BRICS Civil Society Comment on the WSIS+10 Review
 Non-Paper
Message-ID: <CAGpHsu9fnuYoz3f4jqTx1mYXv=6ds5FLJWT+ZMKhysHvZhtTFA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

A group of civil society representatives together submitted a coordinated
comment on the WSIS+10 Review non-paper. We are pleased to share the same
with you. A special thanks to all the people who made the comment possible
in such a short time span.

Please let us know your thoughts on the document. We hope to expand the
group in the future. So please do let us know if this is of interest to you.

Best,
Puneeth

-- 
Puneeth Nagaraj | Senior Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi
| Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 956-091-4899 | Fax:
(+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org .  <http://goog_561379142/>
www.nludelhi.ac.in |  <https://twitter.com/CCGDelhi>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150922/2c930150/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: UNPAN95331.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 405179 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150922/2c930150/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 nb at bollow.ch  Tue Sep 22 12:47:21 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:47:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] JNC comments on WSIS+10 Review non-paper
Message-ID: <20150922184721.3af6ff0d@quill>

Dear all

Here are JNC's comments on the WSIS+10 Review non-paper.

Greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)
http://JustNetCoalition.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: JNC_WSIS+10_Sept_2015.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 336830 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150922/1bbe21e8/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 willi.uebelherr at riseup.net  Wed Sep 23 13:16:19 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:16:19 -0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Internet Ungovernance Forum Brasil
In-Reply-To: <5602D7C7.9020309@riseup.net>
References: <5602D7C7.9020309@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <5602DE63.3080505@riseup.net>


for information.

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Foro de Desgobierno de la Internet Brasil
Datum: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:48:07 -0300
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
An: SwLibre Cuba <softwarelibre at uci.cu>, Grettel Barrio Marshall CSL 
<gbarrio at uci.cu>, Informatica Habana <informaticahabana at mincom.gob.cu>, 
Interciencia Cuba <clark at ceniai.inf.cu>, Susana Sanchez Ortiz 
<ssanchez at uci.cu>, Yoandy Perez Villazon <yvillazon at uci.cu>
Kopie (CC): iuf partido pirata <iuf at partidopirata.org>, Iuri Guilherme 
<iuri at openmailbox.org>, Julia Reda <julia.reda at piratenpartei.de>, 
Brigitta Jonsdottir <birgittaj at althingi.is>, Amelia Andersdotter 
<amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se>, Fabiane Bogdanovicz 
<fabianebolan at yahoo.com.br>, Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva at fsfla.org>, ASL 
<asl at asl.org.br>, Uzoma Madukanya <cocoa-sunrise at web.de>, Quiliro 
Ordóñez Baca <quiliro at riseup.net>, Fernando de Sá Moreira 
<urbanoia at gmail.com>, Piratas Norio Salvador <piratasnorio at riseup.net>, 
IUF Alternatif Bilisim <bilgi at alternatifbilisim.org>, Diego Saravia 
<dsa at unsa.edu.ar>, Galleguindio Ramirez 
<galleguindio at partidopirata.com.ar>, IUF Ali Rıza Keleş 
<arkeles at alternatifbilisim.org>, IUF Etkinlik Kayıt 
<kayit at alternatifbilisim.org>, IUF Ahmet Sabancı 
<ahmet at ahmetasabanci.com>, Wolf Gauer <wgauer at gmail.com>, Umit Sahin 
<umitsahin at sabanciuniv.edu>, Ramiro Castillo <ramiro at saslibre.net>, 
Daniel Yucra <danielyucra at gmail.com>, alejandro drabenche 
<alejandro.drabenche at carreralinux.com.ar>, IUF brasil <iuf at lists.riseup.net>

Internet Ungovernance Forum Brazil
http://iuf.partidopirata.org/en/

6th FOSS International Workshop
http://www.informaticahabana.cu/en/eventos/show/98

Dear friends of free technology in Cuba,

your visons are also our visions. We need the free technology as a
global network of all people on our planet. Free to use. Free to
participate. For all people, if they want.

Based on this principles we come to our basics: "global thinking, local
doing" and "knowledge is always world heritage".

For that we need our real and free Internet, the interconnection of
local networks. And this is a task of the people in her local
environment. Not of private and/or state organisations and insitutions.

In November there is the second Internet Ungovernance Forum (IUF) in
Joao Pessoa in Brasil. Parallel to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
We have to discuss the principles of the real InterNet without the needs 
for Governance.

I hope, that our friends in Brasil find a way for participate for all
people in every region on our planet with audio or video streaming. And
it would be fantastic, if our friends from Cuba can participate on this
most important forum to the Internet in this year.

many greetings, willi
Macapa, Brasil


Foro de Desgobierno de la Internet Brasil
http://iuf.partidopirata.org/es/

VI Taller Internacional de Tecnologías de Software Libre y Código Abierto
http://www.informaticahabana.cu/es/eventos/show/98

QueridAs amigAs de la tecnología libre en Cuba,

sus visiones son también nuestras visiones. Necesitamos la tecnología
libre como una red global de todas las personas en nuestro planeta.
Libre para uso. Libre para participar. Para todas las personas, si quieren.

Sobre la base de estos principios llegamos a nuestros fundamentos:
"Pensamiento global, activar local" y "el conocimiento es siempre
patrimonio del mundo".

Para eso necesitamos nuestro Internet real y libre, la interconexión de
las redes locales. Y esta es una tarea de las personas en su entorno
local. No es una tarea de las organizaciones e instituciones privadas
y/o estatales.

En noviembre se encuentra el segundo Foro de Desgobierno de la Internet
(Internet Ungovernance Forum IUF) en Joao Pessoa en Brasil. Paralelo al
Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (Internet Governance Forum IGF). Tenemos
que discutir los principios de la verdadera Internet sin la necesidad de 
gobernanza.

Espero que nuestros amigos de Brasil encontrar un camino para participar 
de todas las personas en todas las regiones de nuestro planeta con el 
streaming de audio o vídeo. Y sería fantástico, si nuestros amigos de 
Cuba pueden participar en este mas importante foro de Internet en este año.

muchos saludos, willi
Macapa, Brasil




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

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Wed Sep 23 18:12:42 2015
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 00:12:42 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] UN manipulated by Transnational corporations
Message-ID: <242680023.25117.1443046362466.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e26>

Dear Parminder, Michael and all

 

Revealing Report from Global Policy Forum.

 

Link : http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/09/u-n-manipulated-by-transnational-corporations-new-study-charges/

 

The report reminds us the biased WSIS debates and the dominant neoliberal ideology imposed by the ITU and its allies among which we happened to find UNESCO. We also were and still are told by the WSIS leading UN agencies, ITU at first, that Public-Private Partnerships is the Holy Grail of financing development. And so is Broadband (BB) for development itself ! What's more BB is declared a Basic Human right, as is Water, by the former ITU Chief Hamadoun Toure.

 

Best regards

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack

U.N. Manipulated by Transnational Corporations, New Study Charges
By Thalif Deen Reprint |      | Print | Send by email |En español 
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 22 2015 (IPS) - The United Nations, which is commemorating its 70th anniversary next week punctuated by a summit meeting of world leaders, is facing charges of being politically manipulated by big business and transnational corporations (TNCs) – some openly violating labour rights and environmental standards the world body so vociferously advocates.


A new study from Global Policy Forum (GPF), released Tuesday, warns that the United Nations is “embarking on a new era of selective multilateralism, shaped by intergovernmental policy impasses and a growing reliance on corporate-led solutions to global problems.”

“The changing funding patterns of the U.N. and its funds, programmes and specialized agencies reflect these alarming trends.”

Some of the key features, the study points out, include the growing gap between the scale of global problems and the (financial) capacity of the U.N. to solve them; the growing share of non-core contributions and earmarked trust funds in U.N. finance; increased reliance on the corporate sector; and the outsourcing of funding and decision-making to exclusive global partnerships.

The 140-page study, titled ‘Fit for Whose Purpose? Private Funding and Corporate Influence in the United Nations’, is being released ahead of the U.N. Sustainable Development Summit scheduled to take place Sep. 25-27.

Asked who should be blamed for the current state of affairs, Jens Martens, Director Global Policy Forum and co-author of the study, told IPS member States have failed to provide sufficient and reliable funding to the U.N. system.

“This situation is compounded by the insistence over many years of Western governments, led by the USA, on a doctrine of zero-growth to the U.N. assessed budget,” he said.

The result has been increasing reliance on voluntary and non-core funding, as well as a growing number of ad hoc and disparate partnerships between the U.N. and the business sector, Martens added.

The U.N. Centre on TNCs (UNCTC), which was established in 1975 primarily to monitor TNCs, was dismantled in 1992.

Some of the initiatives to hold corporations accountable to the public started in the 1970s, including discussions about a Code of Conduct for Transnational Corporations.

But this, and all subsequent efforts, met with vigorous opposition from TNCs and their lobby groups, and they ultimately failed.

At the same time, says the study, corporate actors have been very successful in implementing public relations strategies that have helped to present business enterprises as good corporate citizens seeking dialogue with governments, the U.N. and decent concerned ‘stakeholders’, and able to implement environment, social and human rights standards through voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives.

Martens told IPS the UN Secretary-General and U.N. heads of agencies have become energetic advocates of business sector engagement and partnerships.

Beyond viewing these arrangements as a new source of funds, they are driven by the belief that engaging powerful corporations is essential to maintaining the relevance of the U.N. in addressing today’s global challenges, he pointed out.

“But they sell the U.N. at a cheap price. While the costs for the companies are remarkably low, the benefits can be comparatively high.”

He said companies benefit from a strong image transfer by associating themselves with the U.N., win greater visibility, and gain direct access to global policy makers.

“But what does this image transfer mean for the reputation and neutrality of the U.N.? Isn’t there the risk that the cooperation with controversial corporations adversely affects the image of the U.N. as a neutral broker and undermines its reputation?,” Martens asked.

When the United Nations seeks outside financial assistance either for development needs or to advocate social causes, according to one U.N. source, it invariably turns to the private sector these days.

Perhaps the most demanding is Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s appeal to private investors to help the United Nations reach its staggering 100-billion-dollar target per year in funds to battle the devastating consequences of climate change.

Ban is relying primarily on private sector funding while also appealing for funds from governments and the public sector.

The study is also critical of the U.N.’s Global Compact, described as the world’s largest corporate sustainability initiative involving 8,371 companies in 162 countries – at last count.

The Global Compact has been most instrumental in opening up the United Nations to the business sector, according to the study.

“While it may have been designed to do exactly the opposite – sensitize businesses for public interests through the promotion of the ten Principles – it also serves as a platform and promoter of corporate interests in the U.N.”

This is aggravated by its dependence on private funding and its overly complex governance structure, which gives little space to Member States while limiting oversight to those making financial contributions.

“In fact, the Global Compact is one of the few U.N. entities which are predominantly dependent on private money. This may have repercussions on how its mandate is being interpreted and implemented.”

Martens said funding of all U.N. system-wide activities is around 40 billion dollars per year.

“While this may seem to be a substantial sum, in reality it is smaller than the budget of New York City, less than a quarter of the budget of the European Union, and only 2.3 per cent of the world’s military expenditures,” he pointed out.

“As the World Bank calls on the global community to move from ‘Billions’ to ‘Trillions’ to meet the investment needs of the Sustainable Development Goals, the United Nations still has to calculate in terms of ‘Millions’.”

Barbara Adams, co-author of the study said many Member States, particularly the large donors, pursue a dual approach of calling for greater coherence in U.N. development activities while at the same time increasing their use of earmarked funding, which furthers fragmentation.”

She added: “This pick- and- choose dynamic, together with ongoing financial constraints, has opened the space for corporate sector engagement.”

Increasingly, she noted, the U.N. is promoting market-based approaches and multi-stakeholder partnerships as the business model for solving global problems.

Driven by a belief that engaging the more economically powerful is essential to maintaining the relevance of the U.N., this practice has harmful consequences for democratic governance and general public support, as it aligns more with power centres and away from the less powerful, she declared.

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen at aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150924/7069c1fa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Sep 24 04:23:28 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 04:23:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST THU/FRI: East Africa Internet Governance Forum
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2t5guOv69Q-KLxqXMH_zG4-zLOQeNB62toy3i+iFObUQ@mail.gmail.com>

​This is well under way. Nice quality stream again from ISOC Africa​.



joly posted: "Today Thursday 24 September and tomorrow Friday 25 September
the 2015 East Africa Internet Governance Forum (EAIGF) is taking place in
Kampala, Uganda, with the theme "Thinking Globally, Acting Locally". The
one and half day meeting is a multi-stakeholde"

[image: East Africa IGF]Today *Thursday 24 September* and tomorrow *Friday
25 September* the *2015 East Africa Internet Governance Forum
<http://www.eaigf.org/>* (EAIGF) is taking place in *Kampala, Uganda*, with
the theme "*Thinking Globally, Acting Locally*". The one and half day
meeting is a multi-stakeholder event that brings together representatives
from government, civil society, academia, private and individuals
interested in shaping discussion on how Internet is run in East Africa. The
forum aims at creating a Community of Practice that will build a sustaining
foundation for meaningful participation of East African stakeholders in
Internet public policy debates at the national, regional and international
level. The forum is being webcast live on the Internet Society Livestream
Channel <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/eaigf>. Kampala is UTC+3, 7
hours ahead of NYC.







*What: 2015 East Africa Internet Governance Forum <http://www.eaigf.org/>
Where: Kampala, Uganda When: Thursday 24 September - Friday 25 September
Agenda:
http://www.eaigf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EAIGF-2015-Programme1.pdf
<http://www.eaigf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EAIGF-2015-Programme1.pdf>
Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/eaigf
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/eaigf> Twitter: #eaigf
<http://twitter.com/hashtag/eaigf> | #eaigf15
<http://twitter.com/hashtag/eaigf> Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/eaigf
<https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/eaigf>*




Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8038#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8038#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8038









-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150924/bfba0597/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Sep 24 05:51:41 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:51:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] [discuss] Fwd: Internet Ungovernance Forum Brasil
In-Reply-To: <5602DE63.3080505@riseup.net>
References: <5602D7C7.9020309@riseup.net>
 <5602DE63.3080505@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <E1Zf3BH-0002xd-VW@igcaucus.org>

Dear Willi,
It seems there is a convergence on simple concepts :

  "global thinking, local doing"
  "knowledge is always world heritage".

I will add :

- the internet is us, the catenet is our 
machines, the intersem our our relations.
- Hubert Zimmermann (+) : "the network is the computer"
- Louis Pouzin : "the network is the networks"
- Aristote : architectonics is the disciplines of 
basics and the science of politics, the art of 
which is to lead free people (we now have 
interconnected through the bots' cantonade).

NB. However "cantonade" (both sides of the stage) 
is the best existing word to describe the 
ubiquist digital facilitation - aside of the 
ancient Greek plays' "choir", I have not found an English equivalent term.

jfc



At 19:16 23/09/2015, willi uebelherr wrote:
>Internet Ungovernance Forum Brazil
>http://iuf.partidopirata.org/en/
>
>6th FOSS International Workshop
>http://www.informaticahabana.cu/en/eventos/show/98
>
>Dear friends of free technology in Cuba,
>
>your visons are also our visions. We need the free technology as a
>global network of all people on our planet. Free to use. Free to
>participate. For all people, if they want.
>
>Based on this principles we come to our basics: "global thinking, local
>doing" and "knowledge is always world heritage".
>
>For that we need our real and free Internet, the interconnection of
>local networks. And this is a task of the people in her local
>environment. Not of private and/or state organisations and insitutions.
>
>In November there is the second Internet Ungovernance Forum (IUF) in
>Joao Pessoa in Brasil. Parallel to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
>We have to discuss the principles of the real 
>InterNet without the needs for Governance.
>
>I hope, that our friends in Brasil find a way for participate for all
>people in every region on our planet with audio or video streaming. And
>it would be fantastic, if our friends from Cuba can participate on this
>most important forum to the Internet in this year.
>
>many greetings, willi
>Macapa, Brasil
>
>
>Foro de Desgobierno de la Internet Brasil
>http://iuf.partidopirata.org/es/
>
>VI Taller Internacional de Tecnologías de Software Libre y Código Abierto
>http://www.informaticahabana.cu/es/eventos/show/98
>
>QueridAs amigAs de la tecnología libre en Cuba,
>
>sus visiones son también nuestras visiones. Necesitamos la tecnología
>libre como una red global de todas las personas en nuestro planeta.
>Libre para uso. Libre para participar. Para todas las personas, si quieren.
>
>Sobre la base de estos principios llegamos a nuestros fundamentos:
>"Pensamiento global, activar local" y "el conocimiento es siempre
>patrimonio del mundo".
>
>Para eso necesitamos nuestro Internet real y libre, la interconexión de
>las redes locales. Y esta es una tarea de las personas en su entorno
>local. No es una tarea de las organizaciones e instituciones privadas
>y/o estatales.
>
>En noviembre se encuentra el segundo Foro de Desgobierno de la Internet
>(Internet Ungovernance Forum IUF) en Joao Pessoa en Brasil. Paralelo al
>Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (Internet Governance Forum IGF). Tenemos
>que discutir los principios de la verdadera 
>Internet sin la necesidad de gobernanza.
>
>Espero que nuestros amigos de Brasil encontrar 
>un camino para participar de todas las personas 
>en todas las regiones de nuestro planeta con el 
>streaming de audio o vídeo. Y sería 
>fantástico, si nuestros amigos de Cuba pueden 
>participar en este mas importante foro de Internet en este año.
>
>muchos saludos, willi
>Macapa, Brasil
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 0net.org
>http://0net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_0net.org


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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Sep 27 12:14:16 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:14:16 -0700
Subject: [governance] Using the digital to create a civic commons (in NYC)
Message-ID: <02aa01d0f93f$8fa3b1b0$aeeb1510$@gmail.com>

http://citylimits.org/2015/09/14/city-must-use-nyc-to-create-a-real-civic-co
mmons/

 

A very important piece by our colleague Tom Lowenhaupt on TLD's and the
civic commons.

 

M

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150927/c66408ec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Sep 27 18:16:32 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:16:32 -0700
Subject: [governance] <nettime> VW
In-Reply-To: <56083fbf.e517b40a.c26ec.043dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
References: <56083fbf.e517b40a.c26ec.043dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <00c801d0f972$2ae9d5a0$80bd80e0$@gmail.com>

Ted and all,

Far be it from me to second guess the insight (or well-placed cynicism) of Nettimer folks but dare I say that not all folks who should be, are quite as perspicacious.

The flavour of the day in global governance circles--think managing the Internet (ICANN etc.), the environment, "sustainable development" and on and on is what is being called "multistakeholderism" i.e. where governments, the private sector, civil society and all get together and "find consensus" solutions on to how to manage the world for the rest of us.  

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...

But if VW can and will commit fraud and what is in effect a crime against humanity for short term financial (and/or ego) gains then what might one expect from lesser lights with perhaps less to lose and who aren't so deeply enmeshed in what should have been (and what purportedly was) a deep web (errr network) of accountability, responsibility, enforced integrity etc. (as per your comments...

What VW tells us (and why "motivation" is worth looking at) is that when push comes to shove we really really need some structures of accountability that are responsive to "our", the public's needs and not the shareholders and that multistakeholderism as a system of governance is basically giving away the keys to the kingdom.

Mike 

-----Original Message-----
From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of t byfield
Sent: September 27, 2015 12:08 PM
To: nettime-l at kein.org
Subject: Re: <nettime> VW

On 25 Sep 2015, at 20:59, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> Thanks Ted, very useful.
>
> I guess what I'm curious about is the motivations, individual and/or 
> corporate thought processes/incentives etc. that underlie the initial 
> decision to go down this path and then the multitude of decisions at 
> various levels up and down the organization to continue on this path.
<...>

Michael, your line of questions seems to be a high priority for the
media: today's NYT top story is "As Volkswagen Pushed to Be No. 1, Ambitions Fueled a Scandal." Personally, I don't think there's been much innovation in the motivation dept since, say, Sophocles, so the human-interest angle isn't very interesting, IMO. If anything, it's the primary mechanism in diverting attention from the real problem, namely, how to address malfeasance on this scale. Corporations are treated as 'people' when it comes to privatizing profit, but when it comes to liabilities they're become treated as amorphous, networky constructs, and punishing them becomes an exercise in trying to catch smoke with your hands. Imagine for a moment that by some improbable chain of events VW ended up facing a 'corporate death penalty,' there remain all kinds of questions about what restrictions would be imposed on the most culpable officers, how its assets would be disposed of, and what would happen to its intellectual property. (It'd be funny if the the VW logo was banned, eh? I'm not suggesting anything like that could actually happen, of course.) The peculiar details of this scandal could spark a systemic crisis of a different kind, one that makes evading guilt more difficult. The 'too complex for mere mortals' line won't work in this
case: VWs have come a long way since the Deutsche Arbeitsfront or R. 
Crumb-like illustrated manuals about _How to Keep your Volkswagen Alive_, but not so far that people will blindly accept that they can't understand them. Popular understanding of negative externalities in environmentalism is decades ahead of its equivalent in finance. And it doesn't hurt that Germany, which has done so much to bend the EU to its will, looks like it'll be the lender of last resort.

On 26 Sep 2015, at 10:22, Florian Cramer wrote:

>  The implication for "our" field are much more immediate than one 
> would  expect, given that the Centre of Digital Cultures of Leuphana  
> University Lüneburg has been funded from a grant by Volkswagen  
> Stiftung (Volkswagen Endowment) a few years ago. Look at who's working  
> there - a who's who of European media studies including many Nettimers:
>  http://cdc.leuphana.com/people/

It'll be very interesting indeed to hear what the stars of ~German media theory have to say about this. Maybe about as much as most US academics have to say about their role in imposing indentured servitude on subsequent generations...

On 27 Sep 2015, at 5:02, Jaromil wrote:

> to debate this thing as if it would be just about Volkswagen is so 
> naive! srsly. There is nothing to be learned there.

Jaromil, I think it's a bit premature to counter claims that this is 'just about Volkswagen,' because no one said anything like that. 
Obviously there are many ways in which this is symptomatic of broader structures. But Lehman Brothers and Fukushima were symptomatic as well, and would you really argue that 'there was nothing to be learned there' 
either? *And* hold hold up Android's OEMs cheating on benchmarks as a more illuminating example? I don't think so. Relying on open-source metaphor-mantras ('Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?') to analyze peculiar dynamics of the car industry is like relying on Godwin's Law to understand neo-nazis. :^)

As to whether there's anything to be learned about the car industry, a friend sent me this offlist (forwarded with permission):

> Just wanted to say that many many auto dealerships within much of the 
> USA -- and I certainly don't know if this is the case in Europe or the 
> northern coastal (blue state or /we/ US) -- are strange franchise ops 
> in which a single owner has bought into multiple auto brands -- eg 
> [where I live] the VW dealer is also the Audi, Infiniti, Maserati, 
> Acura, Jaguar, Fiat dealer. While the bylaws of these franchises 
> typically require separate showrooms they do not always require 
> separate facilities for other operations. So, for example, the service 
> department, where one expects hypothetical but impossible repairs to 
> "ramdoubler" VW emissions tech would occur might be shared by multiple 
> auto brands. Some of those might be tiered brands fabricated by the 
> same financial interests (e.g. VW and Audi) but that will not always 
> be true. As such, we will not have the results of the capitalist 
> competition we may expect -- that is if VW and competing brands are 
> collocated and share infrastructure and personnel in terms of auto 
> dealerships, the falling VW dominos will knock over the dominos of 
> other automobile sellers and maintainers and servicers (and thus
> manufacturers?) as opposed to a scenario in which VW "loses" so 'other 
> brand' "wins."

There's much to be learned, but not about 'motivations' or 'corporations,' IMO. And you gotta love the Ramdoubler ref.

Cheers,
T


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission #  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org


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

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Sep 28 07:18:06 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:18:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Webinar now: #theGIP Digital Watch launch
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2RVXfA5DvuumxTS80uckQzpzrBY-kSzEWAwnf3W-+=Og@mail.gmail.com>

This is just about to begin. You can also watch a webcast relay at
http://bit.ly/isoctv

joly posted: "On September 16 2015 the IoT NY Meetup, in the run up to the
World Maker Faire in Queens this weekend, presented talks by Arduino CEO
Massimo Banzi and Maker Faire co-creator Sherry Huss. Clips of the talks
are below. View the whole thing here. Tweets are"


[image: GIP Digital Watch]On *Monday 28 September* the *Geneva Internet
Platform <http://giplatform.org/>*(GIP), in partnership with *DiploFoundation
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/>*, the *Federal Department of Foreign Affairs
<https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home.html>*, the *Federal Office for
Communications of Switzerland <http://www.ofcom.ch/>*, and the *Internet
Society <http://isoc.org/>*will launch the *GIP Digital Watch
<http://giplatform.org/digitalwatch>*, an online observatory of digital
policies. The GIP Digital Watch maintains a comprehensive summary of
Internet developments and provides access to the latest research and data
on Internet policy developments and processes. Speakers at the launch event
will include *Dr Jovan Kurbalija*, Director of DiploFoundation and Head of
GIP, who will introduce the new GIP Digital Watch, as well as *Kathryn
Brown*, President and CEO of ISOC, and Amb. *Alexandre Fasel*, Permanent
Mission of Switzerland to the UN (tbc) and a representative of OFCOM (tbc).
Remote participation is available.





*What: GIP Digital Watch launchWhere: Geneva, SwitzerlandWhen: Monday 28
September 13:15 – 14.15 CET | 11:15-12:15 UTC | 7:15 – 8:15 EDTRemote
Participation: Webex
<https://diplofoundation.webex.com/diplofoundation/onstage/g.php?MTID=ea8a877df399fbf1f0d809a60704d989b>Twitter:
#theGIP
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/thegip?f=tweets&vertical=default&src=hash>*




*​Permalink*
:
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8065 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8056>


  <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8056>

<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8056>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150928/6c16723e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Mon Sep 28 07:31:44 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:31:44 +0200
Subject: [governance] UN manipulated by Transnational corporations
In-Reply-To: <242680023.25117.1443046362466.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e26>
References: <242680023.25117.1443046362466.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e26>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYp1Ptx9Rvmio56Lvbg5wkF=4WnueMSRujCKYuKhDL8BnA@mail.gmail.com>

Just another effect of the US mundial colonization.

Perhaps some central authority within the UN system could rule that all
earmarked contributions should only be acceptable if they come with an
equal or higher non earmarked contribution.

Cheers. Louis.
- - -

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>
wrote:

> Dear Parminder, Michael and all
>
>
>
> Revealing Report from Global Policy Forum.
>
>
>
> Link :
> http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/09/u-n-manipulated-by-transnational-corporations-new-study-charges/
>
>
>
> The report reminds us the biased WSIS debates and the dominant neoliberal
> ideology imposed by the ITU and its allies among which we happened to find
> UNESCO. We also were and still are told by the WSIS leading UN agencies,
> ITU at first, that Public-Private Partnerships is the Holy Grail of
> financing development. And so is Broadband (BB) for development itself !
> What's more BB is declared a Basic Human right, as is Water, by the former
> ITU Chief Hamadoun Toure.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150928/3cfa7fc3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Mon Sep 28 12:37:19 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:37:19 -0700
Subject: [governance] <nettime> VW
In-Reply-To: <00c801d0f972$2ae9d5a0$80bd80e0$@gmail.com>
References: <56083fbf.e517b40a.c26ec.043dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <00c801d0f972$2ae9d5a0$80bd80e0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56096CBF.7080407@eff.org>

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

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150928/21ee4c0d/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Mon Sep 28 13:48:02 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 01:48:02 +0800
Subject: [governance] <nettime> VW
In-Reply-To: <00c801d0f972$2ae9d5a0$80bd80e0$@gmail.com>
References: <56083fbf.e517b40a.c26ec.043dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <00c801d0f972$2ae9d5a0$80bd80e0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B084478A-76D1-49AD-B943-68E25CEBA0EE@difference.com.au>


> On 28 Sep 2015, at 6:16 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ted and all,
> 
> Far be it from me to second guess the insight (or well-placed cynicism) of Nettimer folks but dare I say that not all folks who should be, are quite as perspicacious.
> 
> The flavour of the day in global governance circles--think managing the Internet (ICANN etc.), the environment, "sustainable development" and on and on is what is being called "multistakeholderism" i.e. where governments, the private sector, civil society and all get together and "find consensus" solutions on to how to manage the world for the rest of us.

> 
> 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…

	Shocking though it is when policy is determined via open and transparent meetings of government, private sector, civil society, academia etc get together to work out policy, I still find it preferable to the de facto alternatives - which is usually government and the private sector get together secretly and work out a deal. I vastly prefer multistakeholderism to processes like the TPP or TTIP - which seem to be the status quo.

> 
> But if VW can and will commit fraud and what is in effect a crime against humanity for short term financial (and/or ego) gains then what might one expect from lesser lights with perhaps less to lose and who aren't so deeply enmeshed in what should have been (and what purportedly was) a deep web (errr network) of accountability, responsibility, enforced integrity etc. (as per your comments…

	Corruption occurs in the private sector, government, civil society, academia, religious institutions, etc. No sector of society has a monopoly on unethical behaviour. Many of these sectors manage profoundly unethical behaviour despite processes and networks designed to provide accountability and responsibility. And yet they still happen. Transparency and accountability are essential, on that I hope we can agree - but they still won’t stop unethical behaviour in all situations.

> What VW tells us (and why "motivation" is worth looking at) is that when push comes to shove we really really need some structures of accountability that are responsive to "our", the public's needs and not the shareholders and that multistakeholderism as a system of governance is basically giving away the keys to the kingdom.

	Absolutely agree on the need for accountability, but the second doesn’t follow. Multistakeholder processes can still be fully accountable, very much so. Public comment matters. Procedures matter. I’ve just been seeing this in the ICANN Proxy/Privacy Service Accreditation Working Group - corporate lobbyists tried to argue that these vital privacy preserving services should not be available to those using them for commercial services, and a few thousand public comments later, they have had to retreat from that position. I do feel that transparency and responsiveness to public input are vital to make multistakeholderism accountable - but as I’ve actually participated in multistakeholder processes, I recognise that they are usually already there.
	But the VW scandal  has relatively little to do with multistakeholderism as a policy creation system. The VW scandal was not about creating policy, or creating rules, or even about the enforcement of those rules once they were found to be broken - its about a company deliberately attempting to fraudulently bypass those rules, by criminal means, and getting caught. Ethically lacking actively like this can occur in all sectors, regardless of the policy creation process.
	Though I’ll agree that it highlights the need for transparency and accountability. We’ve had discussions many times that make it clear we both believe transparency is essential, but you often criticise multistakeholder processes for a lack of transparency based on no experience. Michael, you’d be far more effective as a lobbyist if you tried to strengthen the accountability mechanisms that exist, rather than insisting that they can’t be possible for dogmatic reasons.

	David

> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of t byfield
> Sent: September 27, 2015 12:08 PM
> To: nettime-l at kein.org
> Subject: Re: <nettime> VW
> 
> On 25 Sep 2015, at 20:59, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Ted, very useful.
>> 
>> I guess what I'm curious about is the motivations, individual and/or
>> corporate thought processes/incentives etc. that underlie the initial
>> decision to go down this path and then the multitude of decisions at
>> various levels up and down the organization to continue on this path.
> <...>
> 
> Michael, your line of questions seems to be a high priority for the
> media: today's NYT top story is "As Volkswagen Pushed to Be No. 1, Ambitions Fueled a Scandal." Personally, I don't think there's been much innovation in the motivation dept since, say, Sophocles, so the human-interest angle isn't very interesting, IMO. If anything, it's the primary mechanism in diverting attention from the real problem, namely, how to address malfeasance on this scale. Corporations are treated as 'people' when it comes to privatizing profit, but when it comes to liabilities they're become treated as amorphous, networky constructs, and punishing them becomes an exercise in trying to catch smoke with your hands. Imagine for a moment that by some improbable chain of events VW ended up facing a 'corporate death penalty,' there remain all kinds of questions about what restrictions would be imposed on the most culpable officers, how its assets would be disposed of, and what would happen to its intellectual property. (It'd be funny if the the VW logo was banned, eh? I'm not suggesting anything like that could actually happen, of course.) The peculiar details of this scandal could spark a systemic crisis of a different kind, one that makes evading guilt more difficult. The 'too complex for mere mortals' line won't work in this
> case: VWs have come a long way since the Deutsche Arbeitsfront or R.
> Crumb-like illustrated manuals about _How to Keep your Volkswagen Alive_, but not so far that people will blindly accept that they can't understand them. Popular understanding of negative externalities in environmentalism is decades ahead of its equivalent in finance. And it doesn't hurt that Germany, which has done so much to bend the EU to its will, looks like it'll be the lender of last resort.
> 
> On 26 Sep 2015, at 10:22, Florian Cramer wrote:
> 
>> The implication for "our" field are much more immediate than one
>> would  expect, given that the Centre of Digital Cultures of Leuphana
>> University Lüneburg has been funded from a grant by Volkswagen
>> Stiftung (Volkswagen Endowment) a few years ago. Look at who's working
>> there - a who's who of European media studies including many Nettimers:
>> http://cdc.leuphana.com/people/
> 
> It'll be very interesting indeed to hear what the stars of ~German media theory have to say about this. Maybe about as much as most US academics have to say about their role in imposing indentured servitude on subsequent generations...
> 
> On 27 Sep 2015, at 5:02, Jaromil wrote:
> 
>> to debate this thing as if it would be just about Volkswagen is so
>> naive! srsly. There is nothing to be learned there.
> 
> Jaromil, I think it's a bit premature to counter claims that this is 'just about Volkswagen,' because no one said anything like that.
> Obviously there are many ways in which this is symptomatic of broader structures. But Lehman Brothers and Fukushima were symptomatic as well, and would you really argue that 'there was nothing to be learned there'
> either? *And* hold hold up Android's OEMs cheating on benchmarks as a more illuminating example? I don't think so. Relying on open-source metaphor-mantras ('Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?') to analyze peculiar dynamics of the car industry is like relying on Godwin's Law to understand neo-nazis. :^)
> 
> As to whether there's anything to be learned about the car industry, a friend sent me this offlist (forwarded with permission):
> 
>> Just wanted to say that many many auto dealerships within much of the
>> USA -- and I certainly don't know if this is the case in Europe or the
>> northern coastal (blue state or /we/ US) -- are strange franchise ops
>> in which a single owner has bought into multiple auto brands -- eg
>> [where I live] the VW dealer is also the Audi, Infiniti, Maserati,
>> Acura, Jaguar, Fiat dealer. While the bylaws of these franchises
>> typically require separate showrooms they do not always require
>> separate facilities for other operations. So, for example, the service
>> department, where one expects hypothetical but impossible repairs to
>> "ramdoubler" VW emissions tech would occur might be shared by multiple
>> auto brands. Some of those might be tiered brands fabricated by the
>> same financial interests (e.g. VW and Audi) but that will not always
>> be true. As such, we will not have the results of the capitalist
>> competition we may expect -- that is if VW and competing brands are
>> collocated and share infrastructure and personnel in terms of auto
>> dealerships, the falling VW dominos will knock over the dominos of
>> other automobile sellers and maintainers and servicers (and thus
>> manufacturers?) as opposed to a scenario in which VW "loses" so 'other
>> brand' "wins."
> 
> There's much to be learned, but not about 'motivations' or 'corporations,' IMO. And you gotta love the Ramdoubler ref.
> 
> Cheers,
> T
> 
> 
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission #  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
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/20150929/a26dcec6/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Sep 28 14:05:03 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:05:03 -0700
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: <001f01d0fa18$33aba370$9b02ea50$@gmail.com>

Interesting response Jeremy.

Of course, what you say is true, but there is a very significant difference between recognizing the way in which the Internet is currently evolving largely under the control of certain identifiable private corporations;  and actively promoting the inclusion of these corporations in the processes of governance which are intended to guide and "manage" this evolution.

In the first instance, the corporations are recognized for what they are--private companies pursuing their own, generally narrowly defined, corporate self-interest whose behaviour needs to regulated in support of the public interest; rather than as you and others are actively promoting where these corporations are to be recognized as equal and cooperating partners involved in consensus processes of global governance (i.e. rule setting).

If we have overwhelming evidence that we should not be trusting VW to be involved in the design of mechanisms for global environmental governance, perhaps you could explain to me why for example Disney Corp, Facebook, Google etc. should be directly involved in the design of mechanisms for global Internet governance and why Civil Society should be so actively promoting that involvement.

Can we thus expect a policy statement from for example the EFF, Access, Digital Partners etc.etc. advocating that it is absolutely necessary that all environmental decision making be undertaken in a consensus mode which includes as equal party "stakeholders" all of those corporations with a major stake in environmental regulation (i.e. the major polluters such as VW etc.etc.)?
 
M


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: September 28, 2015 9:37 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] <nettime> VW

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

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

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

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




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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Sep 28 16:10:16 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:10:16 -0700
Subject: [governance] <nettime> VW
In-Reply-To: <B084478A-76D1-49AD-B943-68E25CEBA0EE@difference.com.au>
References: <56083fbf.e517b40a.c26ec.043dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <00c801d0f972$2ae9d5a0$80bd80e0$@gmail.com> <B084478A-76D1-49AD-B943-68E25CEBA0EE@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <009f01d0fa29$b34f5bb0$19ee1310$@gmail.com>

David,

Let's assume for the moment that we agree that the fundamental and overriding objective is the protection of the public interest in the operation and evolution of the Internet (and not for example as seems to be (or at least to have been) the case with some of our colleagues that the fundamental objective is the protection of the integrity of the Internet itself).

The questions then are several:
	1. how is the public interest defined
	2. who is to be involved in making those definitions
	3. what procedures are to be followed in making and implementing those decisions
	4. and so on.

Certainly the private sector and particularly the Internet giants have to have a significant role in advising on this process--as Jeremy pointed out--they have a lot of the knowledge and expertise and already are making a lot of the rules. But should they be involved in actually defining and making the rules?

However much Facebook or Google are attempting to in effect become the Internet -- they are not the Internet, they are private corporations seeking in various ways (sometimes ethical sometimes less so) to pursue their own private interests--and we would not expect anything else.  In fact under certain jurisdictions they are legally obliged to act in this way.

Why VW is pertinent is because it shows the depths to which a major corporation will go in pursuit of those interests.  Fortunately there is a legal regime which was meant to govern their actions and which they fraudulently flouted.  Imagine if they had been in a position to legally and with an enthusiastic welcome participate in the definition and implementation of that legal regime (notably one of the reasons that their actions were undetected for so long is because following the logic of governance in the age of neo-liberalism, funds for enforcement were cut back in the various jurisdictions and the companies were given the responsibility of "self-enforcement"!). 

Do you really believe that these companies would somehow end up pursuing the public interest rather than their own private interests and with their wealth and power (and capacity for political influence) not in the end "do whatever it takes" to skew the outcome in their favour and further closing the circle by structuring the rules and the structures of accountability to support their private interests.

I agree with you about the need for transparency and accountability for the TPP and TISA etc.etc. and quite honestly I think the active promotion of the multistakeholder model by the major proponents of these types of agreements is precisely because they recognize the difficulty they are having in pursuing these given Civil Society (and Labour and other) opposition they are concluding that where there is a multistakeholder approach with a coopted/compromised civil society is a part of the process, it is a lot easier to control and implement the outcome than it is by pursuing the current TPP and TISA model.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: September 28, 2015 10:48 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Cc: t byfield <tbyfield at panix.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] <nettime> VW


> On 28 Sep 2015, at 6:16 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ted and all,
> 
> Far be it from me to second guess the insight (or well-placed cynicism) of Nettimer folks but dare I say that not all folks who should be, are quite as perspicacious.
> 
> The flavour of the day in global governance circles--think managing the Internet (ICANN etc.), the environment, "sustainable development" and on and on is what is being called "multistakeholderism" i.e. where governments, the private sector, civil society and all get together and "find consensus" solutions on to how to manage the world for the rest of us.

> 
> 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…

	Shocking though it is when policy is determined via open and transparent meetings of government, private sector, civil society, academia etc get together to work out policy, I still find it preferable to the de facto alternatives - which is usually government and the private sector get together secretly and work out a deal. I vastly prefer multistakeholderism to processes like the TPP or TTIP - which seem to be the status quo.

> 
> But if VW can and will commit fraud and what is in effect a crime 
> against humanity for short term financial (and/or ego) gains then what 
> might one expect from lesser lights with perhaps less to lose and who 
> aren't so deeply enmeshed in what should have been (and what 
> purportedly was) a deep web (errr network) of accountability, 
> responsibility, enforced integrity etc. (as per your comments…

	Corruption occurs in the private sector, government, civil society, academia, religious institutions, etc. No sector of society has a monopoly on unethical behaviour. Many of these sectors manage profoundly unethical behaviour despite processes and networks designed to provide accountability and responsibility. And yet they still happen. Transparency and accountability are essential, on that I hope we can agree - but they still won’t stop unethical behaviour in all situations.

> What VW tells us (and why "motivation" is worth looking at) is that when push comes to shove we really really need some structures of accountability that are responsive to "our", the public's needs and not the shareholders and that multistakeholderism as a system of governance is basically giving away the keys to the kingdom.

	Absolutely agree on the need for accountability, but the second doesn’t follow. Multistakeholder processes can still be fully accountable, very much so. Public comment matters. Procedures matter. I’ve just been seeing this in the ICANN Proxy/Privacy Service Accreditation Working Group - corporate lobbyists tried to argue that these vital privacy preserving services should not be available to those using them for commercial services, and a few thousand public comments later, they have had to retreat from that position. I do feel that transparency and responsiveness to public input are vital to make multistakeholderism accountable - but as I’ve actually participated in multistakeholder processes, I recognise that they are usually already there.
	But the VW scandal  has relatively little to do with multistakeholderism as a policy creation system. The VW scandal was not about creating policy, or creating rules, or even about the enforcement of those rules once they were found to be broken - its about a company deliberately attempting to fraudulently bypass those rules, by criminal means, and getting caught. Ethically lacking actively like this can occur in all sectors, regardless of the policy creation process.
	Though I’ll agree that it highlights the need for transparency and accountability. We’ve had discussions many times that make it clear we both believe transparency is essential, but you often criticise multistakeholder processes for a lack of transparency based on no experience. Michael, you’d be far more effective as a lobbyist if you tried to strengthen the accountability mechanisms that exist, rather than insisting that they can’t be possible for dogmatic reasons.

	David

> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org 
> [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of t byfield
> Sent: September 27, 2015 12:08 PM
> To: nettime-l at kein.org
> Subject: Re: <nettime> VW
> 
> On 25 Sep 2015, at 20:59, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Ted, very useful.
>> 
>> I guess what I'm curious about is the motivations, individual and/or 
>> corporate thought processes/incentives etc. that underlie the initial 
>> decision to go down this path and then the multitude of decisions at 
>> various levels up and down the organization to continue on this path.
> <...>
> 
> Michael, your line of questions seems to be a high priority for the
> media: today's NYT top story is "As Volkswagen Pushed to Be No. 1, 
> Ambitions Fueled a Scandal." Personally, I don't think there's been 
> much innovation in the motivation dept since, say, Sophocles, so the 
> human-interest angle isn't very interesting, IMO. If anything, it's 
> the primary mechanism in diverting attention from the real problem, 
> namely, how to address malfeasance on this scale. Corporations are 
> treated as 'people' when it comes to privatizing profit, but when it 
> comes to liabilities they're become treated as amorphous, networky 
> constructs, and punishing them becomes an exercise in trying to catch 
> smoke with your hands. Imagine for a moment that by some improbable 
> chain of events VW ended up facing a 'corporate death penalty,' there 
> remain all kinds of questions about what restrictions would be imposed 
> on the most culpable officers, how its assets would be disposed of, 
> and what would happen to its intellectual property. (It'd be funny if 
> the the VW logo was banned, eh? I'm not suggesting anything like that 
> could actually happen, of course.) The peculiar details of this 
> scandal could spark a systemic crisis of a different kind, one that 
> makes evading guilt more difficult. The 'too complex for mere mortals' 
> line won't work in this
> case: VWs have come a long way since the Deutsche Arbeitsfront or R.
> Crumb-like illustrated manuals about _How to Keep your Volkswagen Alive_, but not so far that people will blindly accept that they can't understand them. Popular understanding of negative externalities in environmentalism is decades ahead of its equivalent in finance. And it doesn't hurt that Germany, which has done so much to bend the EU to its will, looks like it'll be the lender of last resort.
> 
> On 26 Sep 2015, at 10:22, Florian Cramer wrote:
> 
>> The implication for "our" field are much more immediate than one 
>> would  expect, given that the Centre of Digital Cultures of Leuphana 
>> University Lüneburg has been funded from a grant by Volkswagen 
>> Stiftung (Volkswagen Endowment) a few years ago. Look at who's 
>> working there - a who's who of European media studies including many Nettimers:
>> http://cdc.leuphana.com/people/
> 
> It'll be very interesting indeed to hear what the stars of ~German media theory have to say about this. Maybe about as much as most US academics have to say about their role in imposing indentured servitude on subsequent generations...
> 
> On 27 Sep 2015, at 5:02, Jaromil wrote:
> 
>> to debate this thing as if it would be just about Volkswagen is so 
>> naive! srsly. There is nothing to be learned there.
> 
> Jaromil, I think it's a bit premature to counter claims that this is 'just about Volkswagen,' because no one said anything like that.
> Obviously there are many ways in which this is symptomatic of broader structures. But Lehman Brothers and Fukushima were symptomatic as well, and would you really argue that 'there was nothing to be learned there'
> either? *And* hold hold up Android's OEMs cheating on benchmarks as a 
> more illuminating example? I don't think so. Relying on open-source 
> metaphor-mantras ('Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?') to 
> analyze peculiar dynamics of the car industry is like relying on 
> Godwin's Law to understand neo-nazis. :^)
> 
> As to whether there's anything to be learned about the car industry, a friend sent me this offlist (forwarded with permission):
> 
>> Just wanted to say that many many auto dealerships within much of the 
>> USA -- and I certainly don't know if this is the case in Europe or 
>> the northern coastal (blue state or /we/ US) -- are strange franchise 
>> ops in which a single owner has bought into multiple auto brands -- 
>> eg [where I live] the VW dealer is also the Audi, Infiniti, Maserati, 
>> Acura, Jaguar, Fiat dealer. While the bylaws of these franchises 
>> typically require separate showrooms they do not always require 
>> separate facilities for other operations. So, for example, the 
>> service department, where one expects hypothetical but impossible 
>> repairs to "ramdoubler" VW emissions tech would occur might be shared 
>> by multiple auto brands. Some of those might be tiered brands 
>> fabricated by the same financial interests (e.g. VW and Audi) but 
>> that will not always be true. As such, we will not have the results 
>> of the capitalist competition we may expect -- that is if VW and 
>> competing brands are collocated and share infrastructure and 
>> personnel in terms of auto dealerships, the falling VW dominos will 
>> knock over the dominos of other automobile sellers and maintainers 
>> and servicers (and thus
>> manufacturers?) as opposed to a scenario in which VW "loses" so 
>> 'other brand' "wins."
> 
> There's much to be learned, but not about 'motivations' or 'corporations,' IMO. And you gotta love the Ramdoubler ref.
> 
> Cheers,
> T
> 
> 
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission #  
> <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, #  
> collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets #  more 
> info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Sep 29 20:32:43 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:32:43 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: <unlike-us> Zuckerberg's Internet.org will control
 what billions do	online
In-Reply-To: <D1CFEEE2-194B-4E1A-A7E1-CC13A52763D1@xs4all.nl>
References: <D1CFEEE2-194B-4E1A-A7E1-CC13A52763D1@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <000001d0fb17$85fa0900$91ee1b00$@gmail.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: unlike-us [mailto:unlike-us-bounces at listcultures.org] On Behalf Of
Geert Lovink
Sent: September 29, 2015 11:12 AM
To: unlike-us at listcultures.org
Subject: <unlike-us> Zuckerberg's Internet.org will control what billions do
online

https://nofakeinternet.org/

People in countries like India,Zimbabwe, Brazil, Pakistan6 and Paraguay are
speaking out about Facebook's so-called Internet.org platform and its
ability to control what billions of Internet users can do online.

Zuckerberg's partnership with telecom giants, Internet.org, provides access
to a fake Internet where selected services are prioritized over others. This
scheme threatens innovation, free expression, and privacy online.

It blocks many of the websites, apps, and services the world loves from
being made available on equal terms.
 
The fake Internet will also restrict access to local service providers
struggling to get a foothold online.



_______________________________________________
unlike-us mailing list
unlike-us at listcultures.org
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/unlike-us_listcultures.org


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

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Wed Sep 30 03:10:18 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:10:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] [SIMPDA2015] Deadline extended: October 10th, 2015
Message-ID: <022f01d0fb4f$0feddf60$2fc99e20$@unimi.it>

***Paper Submission EXTENDED TO October 10th, 2015***

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP]
****************************************************************************
**
FIFTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON DATA-DRIVEN PROCESS DISCOVERY AND ANALYSIS
9-11 DECEMBER, 2015 - VIENNA, AUSTRIA
simpda2015.di.unimi.it
****************************************************************************
**

About SIMPDA
With the increasing automation of business processes, growing amounts of
process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for
business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6
International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis is to
offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the industry
can share their insight in this hot new field.
The Symposium will feature a number of keynotes illustrating advanced
approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, a competitive PhD
seminar and selected research and industrial demonstrations. This year the
symposium will be held in Vienna, a city in the UNESCO World Heritage List.

Call for Papers
The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and
Analysis (SIMPDA 2014) offers a unique opportunity to present new approaches
and research results to researchers and practitioners working in business
process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis.
The symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and
scientists from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 15 pages.
Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original
contributions, not previously published or under review for publication
elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English and must follow the
LNCS Springer Verlag format. Templates can be downloaded from:
http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html
Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceeding volume of CEUR
workshop series. The authors of the accepted papers will be invited to
submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume which will
be published in the LNBIP series (Lecture Notes in Business Information
Processing, http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for early 2015
(extended papers length will be between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 10-15
papers will be selected for publication after a second round of review.

Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:
- Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods
- Lightweight Process Model
- Data-aware and data-centric approaches
- Process Mining with Big Data
- Variability and configuration of process models
- Process simulation and static analyses
- Process data query languages
- Process data mining
- Privacy-aware process data mining
- Process metadata and semantic reasoning
- Process patterns and standards
- Foundations of business process models
- Resource management in business process execution
- Process tracing and monitoring
- Process change management and evolution
- Business process lifecycle
- Case studies and experience reports
- Social process discovery
- Crowdsourced process definition and discovery

IMPORTANT DATES

Paper Submission: October 3rd 2015 EXTENDED TO October 10th 2015

Submission of PhD Presentations: October 3rd 2015 EXTENDED TO October 10th
2015

Notification of Acceptance: 07 November 2015

Submission of Camera Ready Papers:	21 November 2015

Second International Symposium on Process Data: 9-11 December 2015

Post-proceeding submissions:	30 March 2016


Workshop Format:
In accordance to our historical tradition of proposing SIMPDA as a
symposium, we propose an innovative format for this workshop:
The number of sessions depend on the number of submissions but, considering
the previous editions, we envisage to have four sessions, with 4-5 related
papers assigned to each session. A special session (with a specific review
process) will be dedicated to discuss research plan from PhD students.
Papers are pre-circulated to the authors that will be expected to read all
papers in advance but to avoid exceptional overhead, two are assigned to be
prepared with particular care,  making ready comments and suggestions.
The bulk of the time during each session will be dedicated to open
conversations about all of the papers in a given session, along with any
linkages to the papers and discussions within an earlier session.
The closing session (30 minutes), will include a panel about open challenges
during which every participant will be asked to assemble their
thoughts/project ideas/goals/etc
 that they got out of the workshop.

Call for PhD Research Plans
The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the
world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and
research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their
research results.
Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an
extended abstract describing their research. Submissions can relate to any
aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy
analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions,
interaction and design advances, innovative applications, and social
implications.
Research plans should be at most of 5 page long and should be organized
following the following structure:
Abstract: summarizes, in 5 line, the research aims and significance.
Research Question: defines what will be accomplished by eliciting the
relevant the research questions.
Background: defines the background knowledge providing the 5 most relevant
references (papers or books).
Significance: explains the relevance of the general topic and of the
specific contribution.
Research design and methods: describes and motivates the method adopted
focusing on: assumptions, solutions, data sources, validation of results,
limitations of the approach.
Research stage: describes what the student has done so far.

SIMPDA PhD award
A doctoral award will be given by the SIMPDA PhD Jury to the best research
plan submitted.
Student Scholarships
An application for a limited number of scholarships aimed at students coming
from emerging countries has been submitted to IFIP.
In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it

Keynote Speakers

Visual Analytics meets Process Mining: Challenges and Opportunities
Theresia Gschwandtner and Silvia Miksch
Vienna University of Technology

	Event data or traces of activities often exhibit unexpected behavior
and complex relations. Thus, before and during the application of automated
analysis methods, such as process mining algorithms, the analyst needs to
investigate and understand the data at hand in order to decide which
analysis methods might be appropriate. Visual Analytics integrates the
outstanding capabilities of humans in terms of visual information
exploration with the enormous processing power of computers to form a
powerful knowledge discovery environment. The combination of visual data
exploration with process mining algorithms makes complex information
structures more comprehensible and facilitates new insights.
      In this talk, we will illustrate the various concepts of visual
process mining, focusing on the challenges, but also the great opportunities
for analyzing process data with Visual Analytics methods.

Contextualisation Techniques in Process Mining
Schahram Dustdar
Vienna University of Technology, Austria

Organizers

CHAIRS
Stefanie Rinderle-Ma, Universität Wien, Austria
Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

ADVISORY BOARD
Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy
Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria
Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands
Philippe Cudré-Mauroux , University of Fribourg, Switzerland

Program Committee
- MOHAMED ACHEMLAL, UNIVERSITY OF BORDEAUX, FRANCE
- MARCO ANISETTI, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO, ITALY
- IRENE VANDERFEESTEN, EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, THE NETHERLANDS
- CLAUDIO ARDAGNA, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO, ITALY
- HELEN BALINSKY, HEWLETT-PACKARD LABORATORIES, UK
- MIRCO BIANCO, METROCONSULT ROBERTO DINI AND PARTNERS, ITALY
- JOOS BUIJS, EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, THE NETHERLANDS
- ANTONIO CAFORIO, UNIVERSITÀ DEL SALENTO, ITALY
- CAROLINA CHIAO, UNIVERSITY OF ULM, GERMANY
- TONY CLARK, MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY, UK
- BARABARA WEBER, UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA
- PAUL COTOFREI, UNIVERSITY OF NEUCHÂTEL, SWITZERLAND
- PHILIPPE CUDRE-MAUROUX, UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG, SWITZERLAND
- NORA CUPPENS, ÉCOLE NATIONALE SUPÉRIEURE DES TELECOMMUNICATIONS DE
BRETAGNE, FRANCE
- GIANLUCA DEMARTINI, UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD, UK.
- CLAUDIO DI CICCIO, WU VIENNA, AUSTRIA
- SCHAHRAM DUSTDAR, VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, AUSTRIA
- GREGOR GRAMBOW, UNIVERSITY OF ULM, GERMANY
- CHRISTIAN GUETL, UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ, AUSTRIA
- MOHAND-SAID HACID, UNIVERSITY OF LYON, FRANCE
- VINCENT HILAIRE, UNIVERSITÉ DE TECHNOLOGIE DE BELFORT MONTBÉLIARD, FRANCE
- WEI-CHIANG HONG, ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CHINA
- MUSTAFA JARRAR, BIRZEIT UNIVERSITY, PALESTINE
- MEIKO JENSEN, RUHR-UNI­VER­SI­TY BO­CHUM, GERMANY
- MASSIMO MECELLA, SAPIENZA UNIVERSITÀ DI ROMA, ITALY
- JAN MENDLING, WU VIENNA, AUSTRIA
- KWANGHOON PIO KIM, KYONGGI UNIVERSITY, SOUTH KOREA.
- BARBARA RUSSO, FREE UNIVERSITY OF BOZEN - BOLZANO, ITALY
- GIOVANNA SISSA, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI GENOVA, ITALY
- MAURICE VAN KEULEN, UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE, THE NETHERLANDS
- MATTHIAS WEIDLICH, IMPERIAL COLLEGE, UK
- ISABELLA SEEBER, UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA
- ZEESHAN PERVEZ, UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF SCOTLAND, UK
- MARCIN WYLOT, UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG, SWITZERLAND
- JOSE JACOBO ZUBCOFF, UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTE, SPAIN
- WILFRIED GROSSMANN, UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA, AUSTRIA
- KARIMA BOUDAOUD, ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE NICE SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS, FRANCE

Historical Information on Previous Editions
SIMPDA was proposed in 2011 and 2012 by IFIP WG 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 as the
International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis.
The symposium had around 30 attendees in 2011 and 20 in 2012. It featured a
number of keynotes illustrating new approaches, shorter presentations on
recent research, and a competitive PhD seminar, together with selected
research and industrial demonstrations. The authors of the accepted papers
have been invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium
proceedings volume published in the Springer LNBIP series.
Several events and activities arose off these symposia, among the most
notables we have two Dagstuhl seminars:
Dagstuhl Seminar on Semantic Challenges in Sensor Networks, January 24-29,
2010.
Dagstuhl Seminar on Unleashing Operational Process Mining, November 24-29,
2010.





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

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


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

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

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